Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists afterdirect reclaim allocation fails

[Dave Chinner]

On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:58:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:21:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:25:45 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Still, given the improvements in performance from this patchset,
> > > I'd say inclusion is a no-braniner....
> > 
> > OK, thanks.
> > 
> > It'd be interesting to check the IPI frequency with and without -
> > /proc/interrupts "CAL" field.  Presumably it went down a lot.
> 
> Maybe I suspected you would ask for this. I happened to dump
> /proc/interrupts after the livelock run finished, so you're in
> luck :)
....
> 
> livelock:  59458 58367 58559 59493 59614 57970 59060 58207
> 
> So the livelock case tends to indicate roughly 40,000 more IPI
> interrupts per CPU occurred.  The livelock occurred for close to 5
> minutes, so that's roughly 130 IPIs per second per CPU....

And just to confuse the issue further, I just had a livelock on a
vanilla kernel that did *not* cause the CAL counts to increase.
Hence it appears that the IPI storms are not the cause of the
livelocks Ð'm triggering....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/