Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:00:06 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following. >>> >>> == >>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks >>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit >>> 32768 >>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage >>> 286 >>> // Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB) >>> >>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576 >>> Killed >>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls >>> Killed >>> //above are caused by OOM. >>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage >>> 32763 >>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit >>> 32768 >>> // fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run. >>> == >>> >>> The reason this happens is because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e >>> ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE. >>> >>> Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this. >>> I'll continue to watch. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Kame >>> == >>> Now, there is ZONE_MOVABLE... >>> >>> page cache and user pages are allocated from gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE) >>> >>> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> mm/vmscan.c | 9 ++------- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak.orig/mm/vmscan.c >>> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c >>> @@ -1351,12 +1351,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEM_CONT >>> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM >>> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_HIGHMEM >>> -#else >>> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_NORMAL >>> -#endif >>> - >>> unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_pages(struct mem_container *mem_cont) >>> { >>> struct scan_control sc = { >>> @@ -1371,9 +1365,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_ >>> }; >>> int node; >>> struct zone **zones; >>> + int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE); >>> >>> for_each_online_node(node) { >>> - zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[ZONE_USERPAGES].zones; >>> + zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones; >>> if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc)) >>> return 1; >>> } >> Mel, has sent out a fix (for the single zonelist) that conflicts with >> this one. Your fix looks correct to me, but it will be over ridden >> by Mel's fix (once those patches are in -mm). >> > > "mel's fix" is rather too imprecise a term for me to make head or tail of this. > > Oh well, the patch basically applied, so I whacked it in there, designated > as to be folded into memory-controller-make-charging-gfp-mask-aware.patch I agree that this fix is required and may be over-written by Mel'ls patches in the future, but for now this is the correct fix. Thanks for applying it. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers