[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikxWy-Pw1PrcAJMHs2R7JKksyQzMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:27:26 +0800
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, azurIt <azurit@...ox.sk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Regression from 2.6.36
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2011 à 13:57 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>
>> We had a similar memory problem in fib_trie in the past : We force a
>> synchronize_rcu() every XXX Mbytes allocated to make sure we dont have
>> too much ram waiting to be freed in rcu queues.
I don't think there is too much memory allocated by vmalloc to free.
My patch should reduce the size of the memory allocated by vmalloc().
I think the real problem is kfree always returns the memory, whose
size is aligned to 2^n pages, and more memory are used than before.
>
> This was done in commit c3059477fce2d956
> (ipv4: Use synchronize_rcu() during trie_rebalance())
>
> It was possible in fib_trie because we hold RTNL lock, so managing
> a counter was free.
>
> In fs case, we might use a percpu_counter if we really want to limit the
> amount of space.
>
> Now, I am not even sure we should care that much and could just forget
> about this high order pages use.
In normal cases, only a few fds are used, the ftable isn't larger than
one page, so we should use kmalloc to reduce the memory cost. Maybe we
should set a upper limit for kmalloc() here. One page?
azurlt, would you please test the patch attached? Thanks.
--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
Download attachment "x.diff" of type "application/octet-stream" (419 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists