linux-kernel - Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTimHPFMUOCFAruF5J4OMHSkZsMsAgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:52:14 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	John Lepikhin <johnlepikhin@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> [cc xfs and mm lists]
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:39:29PM +0400, John Lepikhin wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I use high-loaded machine with 10M+ inodes inside XFS, 50+ GB of
>> memory, intensive HDD traffic and 20..50 forks per second. Vanilla
>> kernel 2.6.37.4. The problem is that kernel frees memory very
>> aggressively.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 25% of memory is used by processes
>> 50% for page caches
>> 7% for slabs, etc.
>> 18% free.
>>
>> That's bad but works. After few hours:
>>
>> 25% of memory is used by processes
>> 62% for page caches
>> 7% for slabs, etc.
>> 5% free.
>>
>> Most of files are cached, works perfectly. This is the moment when
>> kernel decides to free some memory. After memory reclaim:
>>
>> 25% of memory is used by processes
>> 25% for page caches(!)
>> 7% for slabs, etc.
>> 43% free(!)
>>
>> Page cache is dropped, server becomes too slow. This is the beginning
>> of new cycle.
>>
>> I didn't found any huge mallocs at that moment. Looks like because of
>> large number of small mallocs (forks) kernel have pessimistic forecast
>> about future memory usage and frees too much memory. Is there any
>> options of tuning this? Any other variants?
>
> First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so
> much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive
> reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event
> trace from the VM so we can see more precisely what it is doiing
> during this event. In that case, recording the kmem/* and vmscan/*
> events is probably sufficient to tell us what memory allocations
> triggered reclaim and how much reclaim was done on each event.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com
>

Recently, We had a similar issue.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg12243.html
But it seems to not merge. I don't know why since I didn't follow up the thread.
Maybe Cced guys can help you.

Is it a sudden big cache drop at the moment or accumulated small cache
drop for long time?
What's your zones' size?

Please attach the result of cat /proc/zoneinfo for others.
--
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/