X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0-r929098 (2010-03-30) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.4.0-r929098 Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with SMTP id p2T7MqSq213832 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:22:52 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1301383561-637c03230000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 859EB1B60BFA for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id E3W55qsuCTjHeBUl for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so3124363wyi.26 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:26:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bTGbzmM7YuzrOWSy3UKWgcXVaWYQl7/B4/PeutBjTr8=; b=w88ZYC87Od5R8zjU2ylWsGEGJnwKjdj8dlaAm0GyTKy1+hEqkwMroxRslCw/z4RNjg gm2jnGBckbUpkWdQkfmbHCvfEuy+zy2ZGOFqORX5C0xdQvY7Zd0+3xgATiCnK07BKpjT n044/ntkYh/Arm3DwZdebWSpu1CatR7vAzGNQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=dV6gE48SVMJeJU0XtWJTF4VrI03R+UgnuyFeilT3eLtqNLN5iZnE2V390Uja8+T8up HccEcycvBck4L2v/D1si1/99hecg+638CdwclbHsyZgwXXI6DLnpipEoYrSpOwaKu+8i UsTlxAYzT6vd8eJeOxDM5moMCFrOYkXRWT1H8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.152.193 with SMTP id d43mr4684481wek.53.1301383560835; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.254.163 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:26:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110328215344.GC3008@dastard> References: <20110328215344.GC3008@dastard> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:26:00 +0400 Message-ID: X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim Subject: Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim From: John Lepikhin To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Barracuda-Connect: mail-wy0-f181.google.com[74.125.82.181] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1301383562 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0024 1.0000 -2.0056 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.01 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VERIFIED X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.59289 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.00 DKIM_VERIFIED Domain Keys Identified Mail: signature passes verification 0.00 DKIM_SIGNED Domain Keys Identified Mail: message has a signature X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.94.2, clamav-milter version 0.94.2 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean 2011/3/29 Dave Chinner : > First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so > much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive > reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event > trace from the VM so we can see more precisely what it is doiing > during this event. In that case, recording the kmem/* and vmscan/* > events is probably sufficient to tell us what memory allocations > triggered reclaim and how much reclaim was done on each event. Do you mean I must add some debug to mm functions? I don't know any other way to catch such events.