[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-mm
Subject:    Re: [PATCH]vmscan: handle underflow for get_scan_ratio
From:       Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu () intel ! com>
Date:       2010-03-31 6:03:44
Message-ID: 20100331060343.GA22223 () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:00:52PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > KOSAKI-san,
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:38:12PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 02:08:53PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Commit 84b18490d1f1bc7ed5095c929f78bc002eb70f26 introduces a regression.
> > > > > > With it, our tmpfs test always oom. The test has a lot of rotated anon
> > > > > > pages and cause percent[0] zero. Actually the percent[0] is a very small
> > > > > > value, but our calculation round it to zero. The commit makes vmscan
> > > > > > completely skip anon pages and cause oops.
> > > > > > An option is if percent[x] is zero in get_scan_ratio(), forces it
> > > > > > to 1. See below patch.
> > > > > > But the offending commit still changes behavior. Without the commit, we scan
> > > > > > all pages if priority is zero, below patch doesn't fix this. Don't know if
> > > > > > It's required to fix this too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can you please post your /proc/meminfo and reproduce program? I'll digg it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Very unfortunately, this patch isn't acceptable. In past time, vmscan 
> > > > > had similar logic, but 1% swap-out made lots bug reports. 
> > > > if 1% is still big, how about below patch?
> > > 
> > > This patch makes a lot of sense than previous. however I think <1% anon ratio
> > > shouldn't happen anyway because file lru doesn't have reclaimable pages.
> > > <1% seems no good reclaim rate.
> > > 
> > > perhaps I'll take your patch for stable tree. but we need to attack the root
> > > cause. iow, I guess we need to fix scan ratio equation itself.
> > 
> > I tend to regard this patch as a general improvement for both
> > .33-stable and .34. 
> > 
> > I do agree with you that it's desirable to do more test&analyze and
> > check further for possibly hidden problems.
> 
> Yeah, I don't want ignore .33-stable too. if I can't find the root cause
> in 2-3 days, I'll revert guilty patch anyway.

OK, thank you!

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]