[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=JwoHtTky=mF5fkhS23mm_dJu4og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:33:11 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...ell.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
colin.king@...onical.com, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] fatal hang untarring 90GB file, possibly writeback related.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...ell.com> wrote:
> It goes on. A number of filesystem and network paths are being hit
> with high-order allocs. i915 was a red herring, it's present but not
> in massive numbers. The filesystem, network and mempool allocations
> are likely to be kicking kswapd awake frequently and hurting overall
> system performance as a result.
>
> I really would like to hear if the fix makes a big difference or
> if we need to consider forcing SLUB high-order allocations bailing
> at the first sign of trouble (e.g. by masking out __GFP_WAIT in
> allocate_slab). Even with the fix applied, kswapd might be waking up
> less but processes will still be getting stalled in direct compaction
> and direct reclaim so it would still be jittery.
Yes, sounds reasonable to me.
Pekka
--
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