[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cd5fb4ff-094c-430c-94fb-a7416de0d332@default>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 15:11:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jenifer Hopper <jhopper@...ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: RE: [PATCHv7 4/8] zswap: add to mm/
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com]
> To: Dave Hansen
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 4/8] zswap: add to mm/
>
> On 03/07/2013 01:00 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 03/06/2013 07:52 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > ...
> >> +**********************************/
> >> +/* attempts to compress and store an single page */
> >> +static int zswap_frontswap_store(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset,
> >> + struct page *page)
> >> +{
> > ...
> >> + /* store */
> >> + handle = zs_malloc(tree->pool, dlen,
> >> + __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC |
> >> + __GFP_NOWARN);
> >> + if (!handle) {
> >> + zswap_reject_zsmalloc_fail++;
> >> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> >> + goto putcpu;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > I think there needs to at least be some strong comments in here about
> > why you're doing this kind of allocation. From some IRC discussion, it
> > seems like you found some pathological case where zswap wasn't helping
> > make reclaim progress and ended up draining the reserve pools and you
> > did this to avoid draining the reserve pools.
>
> I'm currently doing some tests with fewer zsmalloc class sizes and
> removing __GFP_NOMEMALLOC to see the effect.
Zswap/zcache/frontswap are greedy, at times almost violently so.
Using emergency reserves seems like a sure way to OOM depending
on the workload (and luck).
I did some class size experiments too without seeing much advantage.
But without a range of "representative" data streams, it's very
hard to claim any experiment is successful.
I've got some ideas on combining the best of zsmalloc and zbud
but they are still a little raw.
> > I think the lack of progress doing reclaim is really the root cause you
> > should be going after here instead of just working around the symptom.
Dave, agreed. See http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=136147977602561&w=2
and the PAGEFRAME EVACUATION subsection of
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=136200745931284&w=2
--
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