Re: MM VM patches was: 2.6.3-mm4

[Mike Fedyk]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > shrink_slab-for-all-zones.patch
> > >   vm: scan slab in response to highmem scanning
> > >
> > > zone-balancing-fix.patch
> > >   vmscan: zone balancing fix
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2.6.3 + [1] + nfsd-lofft.patch running on a 1GB ram file server.   
> > I have noticed two related issues.
> >
> > First, under 2.6.3 it averages about 90MB[2] anon memory, and 30MB 
> > with the -mm4 vm (the rest is in swap cache).  This could balance out 
> > on the normal non-idle week-day load though...
> >
> > Second the -mm4 vm, there is a lot more swapping[3] going on during 
> > the daily updatedb, and backup runs that are performed on this machine.
> > I'd have to call this second issue a regression, but I want to run it 
> > a couple more days to see if it gets any better (unless you agree of 
> > course).
>
> There are a few things backed out now in 2.6.4-rc1-mm1, and quite a
> few other changes. I hope we can trouble you to test 2.6.4-rc1-mm1?

Yes, I saw that, but since I wasn't using the new code, I chose to keep 
it in the "-mm4" thread. :-D

I'll backport it to 2.6.3 if it doesn't patch with "-F3"...

> Tell me, do you have highmem enabled on this system? If so, swapping

Yes, to get that extra 128MB ram. :)

> might be explained by the batching patch. With it, a small highmem
> zone could possibly place quite a lot more pressure on a large
> ZONE_NORMAL.
>
> 2.6.4-rc1-mm1 sould do much better here.

OK, I'll give that one a shot Monday or Tuesday night.

So, I'll merge up 2.6.3 + "vm of rc1-mm1" and tell you guys what I see.

Are the graphs helpful at all?

Mike
-
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/