Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:16:57 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] add isolate pages vmstat |
| |
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:55:47 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> ChangeLog > Since v5 > - Rewrote the description > - Treat page migration > Since v4 > - Changed displaing order in show_free_areas() (as Wu's suggested) > Since v3 > - Fixed misaccount page bug when lumby reclaim occur > Since v2 > - Separated IsolateLRU field to Isolated(anon) and Isolated(file) > Since v1 > - Renamed IsolatePages to IsolatedLRU > > ================================== > Subject: [PATCH] add isolate pages vmstat > > If the system is running a heavy load of processes then concurrent reclaim > can isolate a large numbe of pages from the LRU. /proc/meminfo and the > output generated for an OOM do not show how many pages were isolated. > > This patch shows the information about isolated pages. > > > reproduce way > ----------------------- > % ./hackbench 140 process 1000 > => OOM occur > > active_anon:146 inactive_anon:0 isolated_anon:49245 > active_file:79 inactive_file:18 isolated_file:113 > unevictable:0 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 buffer:39 > free:370 slab_reclaimable:309 slab_unreclaimable:5492 > mapped:53 shmem:15 pagetables:28140 bounce:0 > > > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> > Acked-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/base/node.c | 4 ++++ > fs/proc/meminfo.c | 4 ++++ > include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 ++ > mm/migrate.c | 11 +++++++++++ > mm/page_alloc.c | 12 +++++++++--- > mm/vmscan.c | 12 +++++++++++- > mm/vmstat.c | 2 ++ > 7 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Index: b/fs/proc/meminfo.c > =================================================================== > --- a/fs/proc/meminfo.c > +++ b/fs/proc/meminfo.c > @@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_ > "Active(file): %8lu kB\n" > "Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n" > "Unevictable: %8lu kB\n" > + "Isolated(anon): %8lu kB\n" > + "Isolated(file): %8lu kB\n" > "Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
Are these counters really important enough to justify being present in /proc/meminfo? They seem fairly low-level developer-only details. Perhaps relegate them to /proc/vmstat?
> #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM > "HighTotal: %8lu kB\n" > @@ -110,6 +112,8 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_ > K(pages[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE]), > K(pages[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]), > K(pages[LRU_UNEVICTABLE]), > + K(global_page_state(NR_ISOLATED_ANON)), > + K(global_page_state(NR_ISOLATED_FILE)), > K(global_page_state(NR_MLOCK)), > #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM > K(i.totalhigh), > Index: b/include/linux/mmzone.h > =================================================================== > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h > @@ -100,6 +100,8 @@ enum zone_stat_item { > NR_BOUNCE, > NR_VMSCAN_WRITE, > NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, /* Writeback using temporary buffers */ > + NR_ISOLATED_ANON, /* Temporary isolated pages from anon lru */ > + NR_ISOLATED_FILE, /* Temporary isolated pages from file lru */ > NR_SHMEM, /* shmem pages (included tmpfs/GEM pages) */ > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > NUMA_HIT, /* allocated in intended node */ > Index: b/mm/page_alloc.c > =================================================================== > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -2115,16 +2115,18 @@ void show_free_areas(void) > } > } > > - printk("Active_anon:%lu active_file:%lu inactive_anon:%lu\n" > - " inactive_file:%lu" > + printk("active_anon:%lu inactive_anon:%lu isolated_anon:%lu\n" > + " active_file:%lu inactive_file:%lu isolated_file:%lu\n" > " unevictable:%lu" > " dirty:%lu writeback:%lu unstable:%lu buffer:%lu\n" > " free:%lu slab_reclaimable:%lu slab_unreclaimable:%lu\n" > " mapped:%lu shmem:%lu pagetables:%lu bounce:%lu\n", > global_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_ANON), > - global_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_FILE), > global_page_state(NR_INACTIVE_ANON), > + global_page_state(NR_ISOLATED_ANON), > + global_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_FILE), > global_page_state(NR_INACTIVE_FILE), > + global_page_state(NR_ISOLATED_FILE), > global_page_state(NR_UNEVICTABLE), > global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY), > global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK), > @@ -2152,6 +2154,8 @@ void show_free_areas(void) > " active_file:%lukB" > " inactive_file:%lukB" > " unevictable:%lukB" > + " isolated(anon):%lukB" > + " isolated(file):%lukB" > " present:%lukB" > " mlocked:%lukB" > " dirty:%lukB" > @@ -2178,6 +2182,8 @@ void show_free_areas(void) > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)), > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)), > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_UNEVICTABLE)), > + K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON)), > + K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE)), > K(zone->present_pages), > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_MLOCK)), > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_DIRTY)), > Index: b/mm/vmscan.c > =================================================================== > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -1067,6 +1067,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis > unsigned long nr_active; > unsigned int count[NR_LRU_LISTS] = { 0, }; > int mode = lumpy_reclaim ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE; > + unsigned long nr_anon; > + unsigned long nr_file; > > nr_taken = sc->isolate_pages(sc->swap_cluster_max, > &page_list, &nr_scan, sc->order, mode, > @@ -1097,6 +1099,10 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis > __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON, > -count[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON]); > > + nr_anon = count[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON] + count[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON]; > + nr_file = count[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] + count[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]; > + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON, nr_anon); > + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE, nr_file); > > reclaim_stat->recent_scanned[0] += count[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON]; > reclaim_stat->recent_scanned[0] += count[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON]; > @@ -1164,6 +1170,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis > spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock); > } > } > + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON, -nr_anon); > + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE, -nr_file); > + > } while (nr_scanned < max_scan);
This is a non-trivial amount of extra stuff. Do we really need it?
|  |