On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:25:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:45:52 +0300
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:22:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm thinking that such a workload would be the above dd in parallel
> > > with a small app which touches the huge page and then exits, then gets
> > > executed again. That "small app" sounds realistic to me. Obviously
> > > one could exercise the zero page's refcount at higher frequency with a
> > > tight map/touch/unmap loop, but that sounds less realistic. It's worth
> > > trying that exercise as well though.
> > >
> > > Or do something else. But we should try to probe this code's
> > > worst-case behaviour, get an understanding of its effects and then
> > > decide whether any such workload is realisic enough to worry about.
> >
> > Okay, I'll try few memory pressure scenarios.
A test program:
while (1) {
posix_memalign((void **)&p, 2 * MB, 2 * MB);
assert(*p == 0);
free(p);
}
With this code in background we have pretty good chance to have huge zero
page freeable (refcount == 1) when shrinker callback called - roughly one
of two.
Pagecache hog (dd if=hugefile of=/dev/null bs=1M) creates enough pressure
to get shrinker callback called, but it was only asked about cache size
(nr_to_scan == 0).
I was not able to get it called with nr_to_scan > 0 on this scenario, so
hzp never freed.
I also tried another scenario: usemem -n16 100M -r 1000. It creates real
memory pressure - no easy reclaimable memory. This time callback called
with nr_to_scan > 0 and we freed hzp. Under pressure we fails to allocate
hzp and code goes to fallback path as it supposed to.
Do I need to check any other scenario?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature