lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: swapping,any updates ?? Just wasted money on mem upgrade performance still suck :-(
Date
On 6 January 2002 13:31, christian e wrote:
> You might remember I had issues with massive swapping and wanted to know
> whether I can control the amount of cache and buffers and so on. Well I
> thought a mem upgrade would do the trick ,but no :-(

You have to face it: Linus will never accept VM subsystem with lots on tuning
knobs. It just won't happen. Fixing VM behavior is the only way. It has to
work satisfactorily _without_ tuning.

> Not easy to explain to my boss that it still crawls with 512 MB mem and
> that's the max limit in this laptop..Anyone found any solutions ?? Check
> this out:
>
> top -bn 1|head -n 30

Can you send full top output along with /proc/meminfo and /proc/slabinfo?
Last time you had mighty X (>100MB) too listed there...

> 16:25:46 up 2:56, 4 users, load average: 0.50, 0.46, 0.43
> 79 processes: 77 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
> CPU states: 9.8% user, 8.5% system, 0.0% nice, 81.7% idle
> Mem: 513692K total, 512072K used, 1620K free, 21564K buffers
> Swap: 248968K total, 60180K used, 188788K free, 323668K cached
>
> PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
> 950 ce 14 0 150M 150M 149M R 18.2 29.9 13:01 vmware
> 1146 ce 17 0 1000 996 772 R 7.3 0.1 0:00 top
> 952 ce 9 0 42572 9528 8268 S 0.9 1.8 0:12 vmware-mks

Well, vmware uses binary-only kernel module, can you confirm bad behaviour
without vmware?

> it just caches like crazy and things start to crawl cause its
> swapping.More than 300 MB of cache what on earth is being cached ?? I
> can't stand ths anymore I guess I'll have to back down to 2.2 again,but
> that'll have other downsides :-( *sigh*
> I'm willing to help as much as I can with this I don't want to give up
> on Linux just like that.

You may try -aa and Rik's VM.
I'm CC'ing them, maybe they are interested...

I use a proggy below to flush caches. It triggers OOM condition. But before
it gets OOM-killed, it forces kernel to discard excessive caches. At least it
has to work that way, but it isn't (on stock kernel), which confirms your
observation that kernel is over-reluctant to flush caches.

#include <stdlib.h>
int main() {
void *p;
unsigned size = 1<<20;
unsigned long total=0;
while(size) {
p = malloc(size);
if(!p) size>>=1;
else {
memset(p, 0x77, size);
total+=size;
printf("Allocated %9u bytes, %12lu total\n",size,total);
}
}
return 0;
}

How2use:
* do repeatedly:
* top c b n 1 >topN (N=1,2,3,4,...)
* same for 'cat /proc/meminfo' and 'cat /proc/slabinfo'
* ./oom_trigger (will(should be) oom killed)
* try to figure out what cache isn't freed as it should :-)

To get clearer picture I do
* killall5 -15; sleep 3; killall5 -9 several times
first, but that will ruin your test case it seems.

Anyway, if you'll spot something unusual in those debug printouts,
please inform lkml
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.110 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site