[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100730131735.GZ16655@random.random>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:17:35 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, stable@...nel.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: raise the bar to PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC stalls
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:17:05PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Fix "system goes unresponsive under memory pressure and lots of
> dirty/writeback pages" bug.
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/4/86
>
> In the above thread, Andreas Mohr described that
>
> Invoking any command locked up for minutes (note that I'm
> talking about attempted additional I/O to the _other_,
> _unaffected_ main system HDD - such as loading some shell
> binaries -, NOT the external SSD18M!!).
>
> This happens when the two conditions are both meet:
> - under memory pressure
> - writing heavily to a slow device
>
> OOM also happens in Andreas' system. The OOM trace shows that 3
> processes are stuck in wait_on_page_writeback() in the direct reclaim
> path. One in do_fork() and the other two in unix_stream_sendmsg(). They
> are blocked on this condition:
>
> (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
>
> which was introduced in commit 78dc583d (vmscan: low order lumpy reclaim
> also should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC) one year ago. That condition may be too
> permissive. In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB. If the direct reclaim
> for the order-1 fork() allocation runs into a range of 512KB
> hard-to-reclaim LRU pages, it will be stalled.
>
> It's a severe problem in three ways.
Lumpy reclaim just made the system totally unusable with frequent
order 9 allocations. I nuked it long ago and replaced it with mem
compaction. You may try aa.git to test how thing goes without lumpy
reclaim. I recently also started to use mem compaction for order 1/2/3
allocations as there's no point not to use it for them, and to call
mem compaction from kswapd to satisfy order 2 GFP_ATOMIC in
replacement of blind responsiveness-destroyer lumpy.
Not sure why people insists on lumpy when we've memory compaction that
won't alter the working set and it's more effective.
--
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