On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:36:21 -0800 Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:16:59PM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote: >> >> > Kswapd tries to rebalance zones persistently until their high >> > watermarks are restored. >> > >> > If the amount of unreclaimable pages in a zone makes this impossible >> > for reclaim, though, kswapd will end up in a busy loop without a >> > chance of reaching its goal. >> > >> > This behaviour was observed on a virtual machine with a tiny >> > Normal-zone that filled up with unreclaimable slab objects. >> > >> > This patch makes kswapd skip rebalancing on such 'hopeless' zones and >> > leaves them to direct reclaim. >> >> Hi! >> >> We are experiencing a similar issue, though with a 757 MB Normal zone, >> where kswapd tries to rebalance Normal after an order-3 allocation while >> page cache allocations (order-0) keep splitting it back up again. It can >> run the whole day like this (SSD storage) without sleeping. > > People at google have told me they've seen the same thing. A fork is > taking 15 minutes when someone else is doing a dd, because the fork > enters direct-reclaim trying for an order-one page. It successfully > frees some order-one pages but before it gets back to allocate one, dd > has gone and stolen them, or split them apart. So we are running into this problem in a container environment. While running dd in a container with bunch of system daemons like sshd, we've seen sshd being OOM killed. One of the theory which we haven't fully proven is dd keep sallocating and stealing pages which just being reclaimed from ttfp of sshd. We've talked with Andrew and wondering if there is a way to prevent that happening. And we learned that we might have something for order 0 pages since they got freed to per-cpu list and the process triggered ttfp more likely to get it unless being rescheduled. But nothing for order 1 which is fork() in this case. --Ying > > This problem would have got worse when slub came along doing its stupid > unnecessary high-order allocations. > > Billions of years ago a direct-reclaimer had a one-deep cache in the > task_struct into which it freed the page to prevent it from getting > stolen. > > Later, we took that out because pages were being freed into the > per-cpu-pages magazine, which is effectively task-local anyway. But > per-cpu-pages are only for order-0 pages. See slub stupidity, above. > > I expect that this is happening so repeatably because the > direct-reclaimer is dong a sleep somewhere after freeing the pages it > needs - if it wasn't doing that then surely the window wouldn't be wide > enough for it to happen so often. But I didn't look. > > Suitable fixes might be > > a) don't go to sleep after the successful direct-reclaim. > > b) reinstate the one-deep task-local free page cache. > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href