On 10/19/17 12:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 17-10-17 15:39:08, David Rientjes wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Yang Shi wrote:
Yes, this should catch occurrences of "huge unreclaimable slabs", right?
Yes, it sounds so. Although single "huge" unreclaimable slab might not result
in excessive slabs use in a whole, but this would help to filter out "small"
unreclaimable slab.
Keep in mind this is regardless of SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT: your patch has
value beyond only unreclaimable slab, it can also be used to show
instances where the oom killer was invoked without properly reclaiming
slab. If the total footprint of a slab cache exceeds 5%, I think a line
should be emitted unconditionally to the kernel log.
agreed. I am not sure 5% is the greatest fit but we can tune that later.
5% might be too few. For example, on a machine with 200G memory, if
there is 80G page cache, radix_tree_node might consume 10G. IMHO, 10%
might be better.
Yang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
