[3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max_order to 0

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:04:41PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 15:04 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Confirmed, I'm afraid ... I can trigger the problem with all three
> > patches under PREEMPT.  It's not a hang this time, it's just kswapd
> > taking 100% system time on 1 CPU and it won't calm down after I unload
> > the system.
> 
> Just on a "if you don't know what's wrong poke about and see" basis, I
> sliced out all the complex logic in sleeping_prematurely() and, as far
> as I can tell, it cures the problem behaviour.  I've loaded up the
> system, and taken the tar load generator through three runs without
> producing a spinning kswapd (this is PREEMPT).  I'll try with a
> non-PREEMPT kernel shortly.
> 
> What this seems to say is that there's a problem with the complex logic
> in sleeping_prematurely().  I'm pretty sure hacking up
> sleeping_prematurely() just to dump all the calculations is the wrong
> thing to do, but perhaps someone can see what the right thing is ...

I think I see the problem: the boolean logic of sleeping_prematurely()
is odd.  If it returns true, kswapd will keep running.  So if
pgdat_balanced() returns true, kswapd should go to sleep.

This?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:04:41PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 15:04 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
>> > Confirmed, I'm afraid ... I can trigger the problem with all three
>> > patches under PREEMPT.  It's not a hang this time, it's just kswapd
>> > taking 100% system time on 1 CPU and it won't calm down after I unload
>> > the system.
>>
>> Just on a "if you don't know what's wrong poke about and see" basis, I
>> sliced out all the complex logic in sleeping_prematurely() and, as far
>> as I can tell, it cures the problem behaviour.  I've loaded up the
>> system, and taken the tar load generator through three runs without
>> producing a spinning kswapd (this is PREEMPT).  I'll try with a
>> non-PREEMPT kernel shortly.
>>
>> What this seems to say is that there's a problem with the complex logic
>> in sleeping_prematurely().  I'm pretty sure hacking up
>> sleeping_prematurely() just to dump all the calculations is the wrong
>> thing to do, but perhaps someone can see what the right thing is ...
>
> I think I see the problem: the boolean logic of sleeping_prematurely()
> is odd.  If it returns true, kswapd will keep running.  So if
> pgdat_balanced() returns true, kswapd should go to sleep.
>
> This?

Yes. Good catch.

>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 2b701e0..092d773 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2261,7 +2261,7 @@ static bool sleeping_prematurely(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
>         * must be balanced
>         */
>        if (order)
> -               return pgdat_balanced(pgdat, balanced, classzone_idx);
> +               return !pgdat_balanced(pgdat, balanced, classzone_idx);
>        else
>                return !all_zones_ok;
>  }
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
>

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:15:06AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:04:41PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 15:04 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Confirmed, I'm afraid ... I can trigger the problem with all three
> > > patches under PREEMPT.  It's not a hang this time, it's just kswapd
> > > taking 100% system time on 1 CPU and it won't calm down after I unload
> > > the system.
> > 
> > Just on a "if you don't know what's wrong poke about and see" basis, I
> > sliced out all the complex logic in sleeping_prematurely() and, as far
> > as I can tell, it cures the problem behaviour.  I've loaded up the
> > system, and taken the tar load generator through three runs without
> > producing a spinning kswapd (this is PREEMPT).  I'll try with a
> > non-PREEMPT kernel shortly.
> > 
> > What this seems to say is that there's a problem with the complex logic
> > in sleeping_prematurely().  I'm pretty sure hacking up
> > sleeping_prematurely() just to dump all the calculations is the wrong
> > thing to do, but perhaps someone can see what the right thing is ...
> 
> I think I see the problem: the boolean logic of sleeping_prematurely()
> is odd.  If it returns true, kswapd will keep running.  So if
> pgdat_balanced() returns true, kswapd should go to sleep.
> 
> This?
> 

You're right.

> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 2b701e0..092d773 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2261,7 +2261,7 @@ static bool sleeping_prematurely(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
>  	 * must be balanced
>  	 */
>  	if (order)
> -		return pgdat_balanced(pgdat, balanced, classzone_idx);
> +		return !pgdat_balanced(pgdat, balanced, classzone_idx);
>  	else
>  		return !all_zones_ok;
>  }