On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 21:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:26:03AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> > On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 20:08 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > >> > > Eric said we also need a patch to add __GFP_NORETRY, right? >> > > Probably before this one in series. >> > >> > Nope, this __GFP_NORETRY has nothing to do with this. >> > >> > I am not yet convinced we want it. >> > >> > This needs mm guys advice, as its a tradeoff for mm layer more than >> > networking... >> >> Well maybe Cc linux-mm then? > > Well, I do not care of people mlocking the memory and complaining that > compaction does not work. > > If these people care, they should contact mm guys, eventually. > > Really this is an issue that has nothing to do with this patch set. > Actually I have more data on this: 1. __GFP_NORETRY really does help and should go into stable tree. 2. You may want to consider GFP_NOKSWAPD, because even in the GFP_ATOMIC case you are waking up kswapd to do reclaims on a continuous basis even when you don't enter direct reclaim. 3. mlocking memory had very little to do with it, that was a red-herring. I tested out the problem scenario with no mlocks. You simply need memory pressure from page_cache, and mm ends up constantly reclaiming and trying to keep another 1-2GB free on our systems (8GB phys ~4GB left for kernel, ~3GB optimally used for page_cache). 4. I think perhaps using a kmem_cache allocation for this buffer is the right way to make this work. I am experimenting with a patch to do this. -Debabrata -Debabrata _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
