[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150724171237.GC3458@Sligo.logfs.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:12:37 -0700
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...estorage.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@...ern.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Spencer Baugh <Spencer.baugh@...estorage.com>,
Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: cond_resched for set_max_huge_pages and
follow_hugetlb_page
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:59:59AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 23-07-15 14:54:31, Spencer Baugh wrote:
> > From: Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org>
> >
> > ~150ms scheduler latency for both observed in the wild.
>
> This is way to vague. Could you describe your problem somehow more,
> please?
> There are schduling points in the page allocator (when it triggers the
> reclaim), why are those not sufficient? Or do you manage to allocate
> many hugetlb pages without performing the reclaim and that leads to
> soft lockups?
We don't use transparent hugepages - they cause too much latency.
Instead we reserve somewhere around 3/4 or so of physical memory for
hugepages. "sysctl -w vm.nr_hugepages=100000" or something similar in a
startup script.
Since it is early in boot we don't go through page reclaim.
Jörn
--
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-- Albert Einstein
--
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