Re: [PATCH 0/10] Reduce system disruption due to kswapd V2

[Zlatko Calusic]

On 12.04.2013 22:41, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:07:54PM +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> > On 12.04.2013 21:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:55:13PM +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> > > > On 09.04.2013 13:06, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > - The only slightly negative thing I observed is that with the patch
> > > > applied kswapd burns 10x - 20x more CPU. So instead of about 15
> > > > seconds, it has now spent more than 4 minutes on one particular
> > > > machine with a quite steady load (after about 12 days of uptime).
> > > > Admittedly, that's still nothing too alarming, but...
> > >
> > > Would you happen to know what circumstances trigger the higher CPU
> > > usage?
> >
> > Really nothing special. The server is lightly loaded, but it does
> > enough reading from the disk so that pagecache is mostly populated
> > and page reclaiming is active. So, kswapd is no doubt using CPU time
> > gradually, nothing extraordinary.
> >
> > When I sent my reply yesterday, the server uptime was 12 days, and
> > kswapd had accumulated 4:28 CPU time. Now, approx 24 hours later (13
> > days uptime):
> >
> > root        23  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        S    Mar30   4:52 [kswapd0]
>
> Ok, that's not too crazy.

Certainly.

> > I will apply your v3 series soon and see if there's any improvement
> > wrt CPU usage, although as I said I don't see that as a big issue.
> > It's still only 0.013% of available CPU resources (dual core CPU).
>
> Excellent, thanks very much for testing and reporting back.

The pleasure is all mine. I really admire your work.

> I read your
> mail on the zone balancing and FWIW I would not have expected this series
> to have any impact on it.

Good to know. At first I thought that your changes on the anon/file 
balance could make something different, obviously not.

> I do not have a good theory yet as to what the
> problem is but I'll give it some thought and se what I come up with. I'll
> be at LSF/MM next week so it might take me a while.

Yeah, that's definitely not something to be solved quickly, let it wait 
until you have more time, and I'll also continue to test various things 
after a slight break.

It's a quite subtle issue, although the solution will probably be simple 
and obvious. But, I also think it'll take a lot of time to find it. I 
tried to develop an artificial test case to speed up debugging, but 
failed horribly. It seems that the issue can be seen only on real workloads.

--
Zlatko

--
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/