Re: [PATCH][5/?] count writeback pages in nr_scanned

[Nick Piggin]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > > The recent OOM kill problem has been happening:
> > > 1) with cache pressure on lowmem only, due to a block device write
> > > 2) with no block congestion at all
> > > 3) with pretty much all pageable lowmme pages in writeback state
> >
> >
> > You must have a wild number of requests configured in the queue.  Is 
> > this CFQ?
>
>
> Yes, it is with CFQ.  Around 650MB of lowmem is in writeback
> stage, which is over 99% of the active and inactive lowmem
> pages...
>
> > I've done testing with "all of memory under writeback" before and it 
> > went OK.  It's certainly a design objective to handle this well.  But 
> > that testing was before we broke it.
>
>
> I suspect something might still be broken.  It may take a few
> days of continuous testing to trigger the bug, though ...

It is possible to be those blk_congestion_wait paths, because
the queue simply won't be congested. So doing io_schedule_timeout
might help.

I wonder if reducing the size of the write queue in CFQ would help
too? IIRC, it only really wants a huge read queue.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/