On Mon 15-04-13 13:03:34, Simon Jeons wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> On 04/12/2013 06:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >[CCing Mel and Johannes]
> >On Fri 05-04-13 22:41:37, Ivan Danov wrote:
> >>Here you can find attached the script, collecting the logs and the
> >>logs themselves during the described process of freezing. It
> >>appeared that the previous logs are corrupted, because both
> >>/proc/vmstat and /proc/meminfo have been logging to the same file.
> >Sorry for the late reply:
> >$ grep MemFree: meminfo.1365194* | awk 'BEGIN{min=9999999}{val=$2; if(val<min)min=val; if(val>max)max=val; sum+=val; n++}END{printf "min:%d max:%d avg:%.2f\n", min, max, sum/n}'
> >min:165256 max:3254516 avg:1642475.35
> >
> >So the free memory dropped down to 165M at minimum. This doesn't sound
> >terribly low and the average free memory was even above 1.5G. But maybe
> >the memory consumption peak was very short between 2 measured moments.
> >
> >The peak seems to be around this time:
> >meminfo.1365194083:MemFree: 650792 kB
> >meminfo.1365194085:MemFree: 664920 kB
> >meminfo.1365194087:MemFree: 165256 kB <<<
> >meminfo.1365194089:MemFree: 822968 kB
> >meminfo.1365194094:MemFree: 666940 kB
> >
> >Let's have a look at the memory reclaim activity
> >vmstat.1365194085:pgscan_kswapd_dma32 760
> >vmstat.1365194085:pgscan_kswapd_normal 10444
> >
> >vmstat.1365194087:pgscan_kswapd_dma32 760
> >vmstat.1365194087:pgscan_kswapd_normal 10444
> >
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgscan_kswapd_dma32 5855
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgscan_kswapd_normal 80621
> >
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgscan_kswapd_dma32 54333
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgscan_kswapd_normal 285562
> >
> >[...]
> >vmstat.1365194098:pgscan_kswapd_dma32 54333
> >vmstat.1365194098:pgscan_kswapd_normal 285562
> >
> >vmstat.1365194100:pgscan_kswapd_dma32 55760
> >vmstat.1365194100:pgscan_kswapd_normal 289493
> >
> >vmstat.1365194102:pgscan_kswapd_dma32 55760
> >vmstat.1365194102:pgscan_kswapd_normal 289493
> >
> >So the background reclaim was active only twice for a short amount of
> >time:
> >- 1365194087 - 1365194094 - 53573 pages in dma32 and 275118 in normal zone
> >- 1365194098 - 1365194100 - 1427 pages in dma32 and 3931 in normal zone
> >
> >The second one looks sane so we can ignore it for now but the first one
> >scanned 1074M in normal zone and 209M in the dma32 zone. Either kswapd
> >had hard time to find something to reclaim or it couldn't cope with the
> >ongoing memory pressure.
> >
> >vmstat.1365194087:pgsteal_kswapd_dma32 373
> >vmstat.1365194087:pgsteal_kswapd_normal 9057
> >
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgsteal_kswapd_dma32 3249
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgsteal_kswapd_normal 56756
> >
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgsteal_kswapd_dma32 14731
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgsteal_kswapd_normal 221733
> >
> >...087-...089
> > - dma32 scanned 5095, reclaimed 0
> > - normal scanned 70177, reclaimed 0
>
> This is not correct.
> - dma32 scanned 5095, reclaimed 2876, effective = 56%
> - normal scanned 70177, reclaimed 47699, effective = 68%
Right you are! I've made a mistake compared wrong timestamps.
> >...089-...094
> > -dma32 scanned 48478, reclaimed 2876
> > - normal scanned 204941, reclaimed 164977
>
> - dma32 scanned 48478, reclaimed 11482, effective = 23%
> - normal scanned 204941, reclaimed 164977, effective = 80%
Same here.
>
> >This shows that kswapd was not able to reclaim any page at first and
> >then it reclaimed a lot (644M in 5s) but still very ineffectively (5% in
> >dma32 and 80% for normal) although normal zone seems to be doing much
> >better.
> >
> >The direct reclaim was active during that time as well:
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgscan_direct_dma32 0
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgscan_direct_normal 0
> >
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgscan_direct_dma32 29339
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgscan_direct_normal 86869
> >
> >which scanned 29339 in dma32 and 86869 in normal zone while it reclaimed:
> >
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgsteal_direct_dma32 0
> >vmstat.1365194089:pgsteal_direct_normal 0
> >
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgsteal_direct_dma32 6137
> >vmstat.1365194094:pgsteal_direct_normal 57677
> >
> >225M in the normal zone but it was still not effective very much (~20%
> >for dma32 and 66% for normal).
> >
> >vmstat.1365194087:nr_written 9013
> >vmstat.1365194089:nr_written 9013
> >vmstat.1365194094:nr_written 15387
> >
> >Only around 24M have been written out during the massive scanning.
> >
> >So we have two problems here I guess. First is that there is not much
> >reclaimable memory when the peak consumption starts and then we have
> >hard times to balance dma32 zone.
> >
> >vmstat.1365194087:nr_shmem 103548
> >vmstat.1365194089:nr_shmem 102227
> >vmstat.1365194094:nr_shmem 100679
> >
> >This tells us that you didn't have that many shmem pages allocated at
> >the time (only 404M). So the /tmp backed by tmpfs shouldn't be the
> >primary issue here.
> >
> >We still have a lot of anonymous memory though:
> >vmstat.1365194087:nr_anon_pages 1430922
> >vmstat.1365194089:nr_anon_pages 1317009
> >vmstat.1365194094:nr_anon_pages 1540460
> >
> >which is around 5.5G. It is interesting that the number of these pages
> >even drops first and then starts growing again (between 089..094 by 870M
> >while we reclaimed around the same amount). This would suggest that the
> >load started trashing on swap but:
> >
> >meminfo.1365194087:SwapFree: 1999868 kB
> >meminfo.1365194089:SwapFree: 1999808 kB
> >meminfo.1365194094:SwapFree: 1784544 kB
> >
> >tells us that we swapped out only 210M after 1365194089. So we had to
>
> How about set vm.swapiness to 200?
swappiness is limited to 0 to 100 values. And it treats anon vs. file
LRUs equally at 100.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>