lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Free memory never fully used, swapping
    On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

    > > Specifying a parameter to temporarily override to see if this has the
    > > effect is ok. But this has worked for years now. There must be something
    > > else going with with reclaim that causes these issues now.
    >
    > I don't think this has worked. Simon have found the corner case recently,
    > but it is not new.

    What has worked? If the reduction of the maximum allocation order did not
    have the expected effect of fixing things here then the issue is not
    related to the higher allocations from slub.

    Higher order allocations are not only a slub issue but a general issue for
    various subsystem that require higher order pages. This ranges from jumbo
    frames, to particular needs for certain device drivers, to huge pages.

    > So I hope you realize that high order allocation is no free lunch. __GFP_NORETRY
    > makes no sense really. Even though we have compaction, high order reclaim is still
    > costly operation.

    Sure. There is a tradeoff between reclaim effort and the benefit of higher
    allocations. The costliness of reclaim may have increased with the recent
    changes to the reclaim logic. In fact reclaim gets more and more complex
    over time and there may be subtle bugs in there given the recent flurry of
    changes.

    > I don't think SLUB's high order allocation trying is bad idea. but now It
    > does more costly trying. that's bad. Also I'm worry about SLUB assume too
    > higher end machine. Now Both SLES and RHEL decided to don't use SLUB,
    > instead use SLAB. Now linux community is fragmented. If you are still
    > interesting SL*B unification, can you please consider to join corner
    > case smashing activity?

    The problems with higher order reclaim get more difficult with small
    memory sizes yes. We could reduce the maximum order automatically if memory
    is too tight. There is nothing hindering us from tuning the max order
    behavior of slub in a similar way that we now tune the thresholds of the
    vm statistics.

    But for that to be done we first need to have some feedback if the changes
    to max order have indeed the desired effect in this corner case.






    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-01 16:31    [W:4.142 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site