lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm 00/16] VM pageout scalability improvements (V8)
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 15:33 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > On Mon, 26 May 2008 23:54:55 +0530
    > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Rik van Riel wrote:
    > > > On large memory systems, the VM can spend way too much time scanning
    > > > through pages that it cannot (or should not) evict from memory. Not
    > > > only does it use up CPU time, but it also provokes lock contention
    > > > and can leave large systems under memory presure in a catatonic state.
    > >
    > > Hi, Rik,
    > >
    > > This patchset looks good (I did a brief scan). I'll go ahead and play with it?
    > > What is a good memory size to test the patches on (to see improvements).
    >
    > The larger, the better. One known problem with the current upstream
    > VM is large numbers of anonymous pages, or a mix of mlocked and anon
    > pages.
    >
    > Once the system needs to swap something out, every single anon page
    > will have the referenced bit set and the system needs to do lots of
    > scanning before it can evict the first page. This scanning causes
    > multiple CPUs to pile up and things slow down exponentially and/or
    > catastrophically :)
    >
    > Unfortunately the largest system I have access to on a regular basis
    > has "only" 16GB of RAM :(
    >
    > I am also making 2.6.25 based kernel RPMs available with the split LRU
    > patch set, at http://people.redhat.com/riel/splitvm/
    >
    > The most recently posted patches are newer, though...
    >

    I tested Rik's previous patch set with my noreclaim/mlock patches over
    the long weekend on 32GB systems--one ia64 [16cpu x 4 nodes] and one
    x86_64 [8 core x 4 nodes] on 26-rc2-mm1. A fairly heavy stress load ran
    for 92-93 hours on each system w/o error. Stats tracked throughout, no
    leaked pages, ...

    Since Balbir is starting to look at this, I need to ask about
    interaction with the memory controller. It is currently unaware of the
    noreclaim list. I'm not sure what will happen if/when the memory
    controller tries to reclaim a page that system has moved to the
    noreclaim list. Something we'll need to address. It's on my list, but
    I won't get to it for a couple of weeks.

    Lee



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-27 17:57    [W:0.022 / U:0.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site