[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080904162900.B262.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:59:44 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] capture pages freed during direct reclaim for allocation by the reclaimer
> When a process enters direct reclaim it will expend effort identifying
> and releasing pages in the hope of obtaining a page. However as these
> pages are released asynchronously there is every possibility that the
> pages will have been consumed by other allocators before the reclaimer
> gets a look in. This is particularly problematic where the reclaimer is
> attempting to allocate a higher order page. It is highly likely that
> a parallel allocation will consume lower order constituent pages as we
> release them preventing them coelescing into the higher order page the
> reclaimer desires.
>
> This patch set attempts to address this for allocations above
> ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER by temporarily collecting the pages we are releasing
> onto a local free list. Instead of freeing them to the main buddy lists,
> pages are collected and coelesced on this per direct reclaimer free list.
> Pages which are freed by other processes are also considered, where they
> coelesce with a page already under capture they will be moved to the
> capture list. When pressure has been applied to a zone we then consult
> the capture list and if there is an appropriatly sized page available
> it is taken immediatly and the remainder returned to the free pool.
> Capture is only enabled when the reclaimer's allocation order exceeds
> ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER as free pages below this order should naturally occur
> in large numbers following regular reclaim.
Hi Andy,
I like almost part of your patch.
(at least, I can ack patch 1/4 - 3/4)
So, I worry about OOM risk.
Can you remember desired page size to capture list (or any other location)?
if possible, __capture_on_page can avoid to capture unnecessary pages.
So, if __capture_on_page() can make desired size page by buddy merging,
it can free other pages on capture_list.
In worst case, shrink_zone() is called by very much process at the same time.
Then, if each process doesn't back few pages, very many pages doesn't be backed.
--
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