LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	vdavydov@parallels.com, mgorman@suse.de, minchan@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: vmscan: fix the page state calculation in too_many_isolated
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:16:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C11444.2020300@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150121143920.GD23700@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 01/21/2015 03:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 19-01-15 09:57:08, Vinayak Menon wrote:
>> On 01/18/2015 01:18 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015, Vinayak Menon wrote:
>>>
>>>> which had not updated the vmstat_diff. This CPU was in idle for around 30
>>>> secs. When I looked at the tvec base for this CPU, the timer associated with
>>>> vmstat_update had its expiry time less than current jiffies. This timer had
>>>> its deferrable flag set, and was tied to the next non-deferrable timer in the
>>>
>>> We can remove the deferrrable flag now since the vmstat threads are only
>>> activated as necessary with the recent changes. Looks like this could fix
>>> your issue?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this should fix my issue.
>
> Does it? Because I would prefer not getting into un-synced state much
> more than playing around one specific place which shows the problems
> right now.
>
>> But I think we may need the fix in too_many_isolated, since there can still
>> be a delay of few seconds (HZ by default and even more because of reasons
>> pointed out by Michal) which will result in reclaimers unnecessarily
>> entering congestion_wait. No ?
>
> I think we can solve this as well. We can stick vmstat_shepherd into a
> kernel thread with a loop with the configured timeout and then create a
> mask of CPUs which need the update and run vmstat_update from
> IPI context (smp_call_function_many).
> We would have to drop cond_resched from refresh_cpu_vm_stats of
> course. The nr_zones x NR_VM_ZONE_STAT_ITEMS in the IPI context
> shouldn't be excessive but I haven't measured that so I might be easily
> wrong.
>
> Anyway, that should work more reliably than the current scheme and
> should help to reduce pointless wakeups which the original patchset was
> addressing.  Or am I missing something?

Maybe to further reduce wakeups, a CPU could check and update its 
counters before going idle? (unless that already happens)


  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-22 15:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-14 11:36 Vinayak Menon
2015-01-14 16:50 ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-15 17:24   ` Vinayak Menon
2015-01-16 15:49     ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-16 17:57       ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-16 19:17         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-17 15:18       ` Vinayak Menon
2015-01-17 19:48         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-19  4:27           ` Vinayak Menon
2015-01-21 14:39             ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-22 15:16               ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2015-01-22 16:11               ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-26 17:46                 ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-26 18:35                   ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-27 10:52                     ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-27 16:59                       ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-30 15:28                         ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-26 17:28           ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-26 18:35             ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-26 22:11             ` Andrew Morton
2015-01-27 10:41               ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-27 10:33             ` Vinayak Menon
2015-01-27 10:45               ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-29 17:32       ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-30 15:27         ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-16  1:17 ` Andrew Morton
2015-01-16  5:10   ` Vinayak Menon
2015-01-17 16:29   ` Vinayak Menon
2015-02-11 22:14     ` Andrew Morton
2015-02-12 16:19       ` Vlastimil Babka

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=54C11444.2020300@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
    --cc=vinmenon@codeaurora.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] mm: vmscan: fix the page state calculation in too_many_isolated' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).