Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for whenzone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA

[Mel Gorman]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:55:55AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > > The tmpfs pages are unreclaimable and therefore should not be on the anon
> > > lru.
> > >
> >
> > tmpfs pages can be swap-backed so can be reclaimable. Regardless of what
> > list they are on, we still need to know how many of them there are if
> > this patch is to be avoided.
> 
> If they are reclaimable then why does it matter? They can be pushed out if
> you configure zone reclaim to be that aggressive.
> 

Because they are reclaimable by kswapd or normal direct reclaim but *not*
reclaimable by zone_reclaim() if the zone_reclaim_mode is not configured
appropriately. I briefly considered setting zone_reclaim_mode to 7 instead of
1 by default for large NUMA distances but that has other serious consequences
such as paging in preference to going off-node as a default out-of-box
behaviour.

The point of the patch is that the heuristics that avoid the scan are not
perfect. In the event they are wrong and a useless scan occurs, the response
of the kernel after a useless scan should not be to uselessly scan a load
more times around the LRU lists making no progress.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/