Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754093Ab3DVGyb (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:54:31 -0400 Received: from bitsync.net ([80.83.126.10]:55562 "EHLO bitsync.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752293Ab3DVGya (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 02:54:30 -0400 Message-ID: <5174DEA0.8010501@bitsync.net> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:54:24 +0200 From: Zlatko Calusic MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Jeons CC: Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Jiri Slaby , Valdis Kletnieks , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , dormando , Satoru Moriya , Michal Hocko , Linux-MM , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] Reduce system disruption due to kswapd V2 References: <1365505625-9460-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <51672331.6070605@bitsync.net> <20130412193947.GJ11656@suse.de> <5168699A.40407@bitsync.net> <5174DA8F.2020400@bitsync.net> <5174DC17.6000809@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5174DC17.6000809@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2341 Lines: 61 On 22.04.2013 08:43, Simon Jeons wrote: > Hi Zlatko, > On 04/22/2013 02:37 PM, Zlatko Calusic wrote: >> On 12.04.2013 22:07, 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: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - 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] >>> >>> 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). >>> >> >> JFTR, v3 kswapd uses about 15% more CPU time than v2. 2:50 kswapd CPU >> time after 6 days 14h uptime. >> >> And find attached another debugging graph that shows how ANON pages >> are privileged in the ZONE_NORMAL on a 4GB machine. Take notice that >> the number of pages in the ZONE_DMA32 is scaled (/5) to fit the graph >> nicely. >> > > Could you tell me how you draw this picture? > It's a home made server monitoring system. I just added the code needed to graph the size of active + inactive LRU lists, per zone and per type. Check out http://oss.oetiker.ch/rrdtool/ -- Zlatko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/