[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1198080519.5333.28.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:08:38 -0500
From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 09:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > I thought Lee had patches that moved pages with long rmap chains (both
> > anon and file) out onto the non-reclaim list, for those a slow
> > background scan does make sense.
>
> I suspect we won't be needing that code. The SEQ replacement for
> swap backed pages might reduce the number of pages that need to
> be scanned to a reasonable number.
>
> Remember, steady states are not a big problem with the current VM.
> It's the sudden burst of scanning that happens when the VM decides
> that it should start swapping (and every anonymous page is referenced)
> that kills large systems.
Yes, I still have the patch [for long anon_vma lists--not for
excessively mapped file, yet] and I'm keeping it up to date and tested.
I do see softlockups on the anon_vma and i_mmap_locks under stress, even
with the reader/writer lock patches. I'll be trying the workloads on
Rik's latest patches to see if they address these lockups.
Lee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists