Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation relatedpatches

[Rik van Riel]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:19:19 -0500
> Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Bill Irwin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:23:28PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > With 32 CPUs diving into the page reclaim simultaneously,
> > > > each trying to scan a fraction of memory, this is disastrous
> > > > for performance.  A 256GB system should be even worse.
> > > Thundering herds of a sort pounding the LRU locks from direct reclaim
> > > have set off the NMI oopser for users here.
> > Ditto here.
>
> Opterons?

It's happened on IA64, too.  Probably on Intel x86-64 as well.

> > The main reason they end up pounding the LRU locks is the
> > swappiness heuristic.  They scan too much before deciding
> > that it would be a good idea to actually swap something
> > out, and with 32 CPUs doing such scanning simultaneously...
>
> What kernel version?

Customers are on the 2.6.9 based RHEL4 kernel, but I believe
we have reproduced the problem on 2.6.18 too during stress
tests.

I have no reason to believe we should stick our heads in the
sand and pretend it no longer exists on 2.6.21.

--
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is.  Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.
-
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/