Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:11:23 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@...il.com>,
	Gurudas Pai <gurudas.pai@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbpage.txt: correct overcommit caveat [Was Re: [BUG]:2.6.25-rc7 memory leak with hugepages.]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:25AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 04.04.2008 [18:16:38 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 08:40:41PM -0700, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> > 
> > > Hrm, fio is using SHM_HUGETLB. Does ipcs indicate maybe fio is not
> > > cleaning up the shared memory segment? FWIW, it seems like each run is
> > > using 400 hugepages in the SHM_HUGETLB segment, and then when you try
> > > to force the pool to shrink, it converts those 800 (since you ran fio
> > > twice) hugepages from static pool pages to dynamic (or overcommit)
> > > pages.
> > > 
> > > On another note, it is odd that we're using the dynamic pool, when it
> > > is initially disabled...I'll have to think about that.
> > > 
> > > I'll try and look at this later this evening or early tomorrow.
> > 
> > Yes that is an expected result.  We have no way to force the pool to
> > shrink when pages are in-use.  When a request is made to redoce the pool
> > below the number of in-use pages, we move the pages to surplus.  While
> > this does temporarily violate the overcommit cap, it does provide the
> > most utility as those pages will be returned to the buddy at the
> > earliest oppotunity.
> > 
> > I suspect the documenation could do with a little clarification.
> 
> 
> As shown by Gurudas Pai recently, we can put hugepages into the surplus
> state (by echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages), even when
> /proc/sys/vm/nr_overcommit_hugepages is 0. This is actually correct, to
> allow the original goal (shrink the static pool to 0) to succeed when it
> is possible for it two (we are converting hugepages to surplus because
> they are in use). However, the documentation does not accurately reflect
> this case. Update it.
>     
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/vm/hugetlbpage.txt b/Documentation/vm/hugetlbpage.txt
> index f962d01..3102b81 100644
> --- a/Documentation/vm/hugetlbpage.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/vm/hugetlbpage.txt
> @@ -88,10 +88,9 @@ hugepages from the buddy allocator, if the normal pool is exhausted. As
>  these surplus hugepages go out of use, they are freed back to the buddy
>  allocator.
>  
> -Caveat: Shrinking the pool via nr_hugepages while a surplus is in effect
> -will allow the number of surplus huge pages to exceed the overcommit
> -value, as the pool hugepages (which must have been in use for a surplus
> -hugepages to be allocated) will become surplus hugepages.  As long as
> +Caveat: Shrinking the pool via nr_hugepages such that it becomes less
> +than the number of hugepages in use will convert the balance to surplus
> +huge pages even if it would exceed the overcommit value.  As long as
>  this condition holds, however, no more surplus huge pages will be
>  allowed on the system until one of the two sysctls are increased
>  sufficiently, or the surplus huge pages go out of use and are freed.

Yep, thats more like reality.

Acked-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>

-apw
--
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