Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261519AbVE1DTG (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 23:19:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261690AbVE1DTG (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 23:19:06 -0400 Received: from www.rapidforum.com ([80.237.244.2]:39397 "HELO rapidforum.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261519AbVE1DSw (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2005 23:18:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4297E2DD.1040807@rapidforum.com> Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 05:17:49 +0200 From: Christian Schmid User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: Ben Greear , Andrew Morton , lkml Subject: Re: BUG: Slowdown on 3000 socket-machines tracked down References: <4229E805.3050105@rapidforum.com> <422BAAC6.6040705@candelatech.com> <422BB548.1020906@rapidforum.com> <422BC303.9060907@candelatech.com> <422BE33D.5080904@yahoo.com.au> <422C1D57.9040708@candelatech.com> <422C1EC0.8050106@yahoo.com.au> <422D468C.7060900@candelatech.com> <422DD5A3.7060202@rapidforum.com> <422F8A8A.8010606@candelatech.com> <422F8C58.4000809@rapidforum.com> <422F9259.2010003@candelatech.com> <422F93CE.3060403@rapidforum.com> <20050309211730.24b4fc93.akpm@osdl.org> <4231B95B.6020209@rapidforum.com> <4231ED18.2050804@candelatech.com> <4231F112.60403@rapidforum.com> <1110775215.5131.17.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <423518C7.10207@rapidforum.com> <1110776689.5131.37.camel@npiggin-nld.site> In-Reply-To: <1110776689.5131.37.camel@npiggin-nld.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2135 Lines: 48 Hi. I want to give the newest report for the vm-lock problem. It seems the problem is getting less critical in every new release. I am currently using 2.6.12-rc5. The problem with the massive vm-lock appears as always when 3500 sockets are reached as reported in earlier mails. The problem suddenly disappears when I set lowmem_reserve_ratio to "1 1" AND min_free_kbytes to 1024000. It only starts to appear again when reaching around 7000 sockets. -rc3 for example slowed down at 4500 sockets again. I am very sure its a vm-lock because for example reading /proc/sys/vm/lowmem_reserve_ratio needs no time with < 3500 sockets. While testing with 7000 sockets, I had to wait 20-30 seconds until the "file" was opened. Any suggestions? Dual Xeon 3,6 GHz with 8 GB Ram. Nick Piggin wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 05:53 +0100, Christian Schmid wrote: > > >>>The other thing that worries me is your need for lower_zone_protection. >>>I think this may be due to unbalanced highmem vs lowmem reclaim. It >>>would be interesting to know if those patches I sent you improve this. >>>They certainly improve reclaim balancing for me... but again I guess >>>you'll be reluctant to do much experimentation :\ >> >>I have tested your patch and unfortunately on 2.6.11 it didnt change anything :( I reported this >>before, or do you mean something else? I am of course willing to test patches as I do not want to >>stick with 2.6.10 forever. > > > Well I hope that scheduler developments in progress will put future > kernels at least on par with 2.6.10 again (and hopefully better). > > Yes you did report that my patch didn't help 2.6.11, but could those > results have been influenced by the suboptimal HT scheduling? If so, > I was interested in the results with HT turned off. > > Nick > > > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. > http://au.movies.yahoo.com > > - 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/