> I don't think so. We're getting the wrong answer out of
> calculate_zone_totalpages() which is an init-time thing.
>
> Maybe nr_free_zone_pages() is supposed to fix that up post-facto somehow,
> but calculate_zone_totalpages() sure as heck shouldn't be putting 1568768
> into my ZONE_NORMAL's
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This machine only has 4G of memory, so the platform code is overestimating
> > the number of pages by 50%. Can you please check your dmesg, see if your
> > system is also getting this wrong?
>
>
>
> On node 0 totalpages: 1572863
> DMA zone: 40
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 17:31 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here is the data with 5 ext2 filesystems. I also collected
> >
"Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > It happens here, a bit. My machine goes up to 60% dirty when it should be
> > clamping at 40%.
> >
> > The variable `total_pages' in page-writeback.c (from
> > nr_free_pagecache_pages()) is too high. I trace it back to here:
> >
> > On node
> It happens here, a bit. My machine goes up to 60% dirty when it should be
> clamping at 40%.
>
> The variable `total_pages' in page-writeback.c (from
> nr_free_pagecache_pages()) is too high. I trace it back to here:
>
> On node 0 totalpages: 1572864
> DMA zone: 4096 pages, LIFO batch:1
>
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is the data with 5 ext2 filesystems. I also collected /proc/meminfo
> > > every 5 seconds. As you can see, we seem to dirty 6G
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the data with 5 ext2 filesystems. I also collected /proc/meminfo
> > every 5 seconds. As you can see, we seem to dirty 6GB of data in 20
> > seconds of starting the test. I am not s
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here is the data with 5 ext2 filesystems. I also collected /proc/meminfo
> every 5 seconds. As you can see, we seem to dirty 6GB of data in 20
> seconds of starting the test. I am not sure if its bad, since we have
> lots of free memory..
It's bad.
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 15:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 14:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ext2 is incredibly better. Machine is very responsive.
> > > >
>
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:33, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> >> > iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
> >>
> >> Could you also try with shared writable mmap, to see if that
> >> works ok or triggers a de
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 14:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ext2 is incredibly better. Machine is very responsive.
> > >
> >
> > OK. Please, always monitor and send /proc/meminfo. I assume t
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 14:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ext2 is incredibly better. Machine is very responsive.
> >
>
> OK. Please, always monitor and send /proc/meminfo. I assume that the
> dirty-memory clamping is working OK with ext2 and
>> > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
>> > iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
>>
>> Could you also try with shared writable mmap, to see if that
>> works ok or triggers a deadlock ?
>
>
> I can, but lets finish addressing one issue a
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ext2 is incredibly better. Machine is very responsive.
>
OK. Please, always monitor and send /proc/meminfo. I assume that the
dirty-memory clamping is working OK with ext2 and that perhaps it'll work
OK with ext3/data=writeback.
All very odd. I
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You probably covered this, but just to make sure, if you're on a
> > pentium4 machine, I usually boot w/ "idle=poll" to see proper idle
> > reporting because otherwise the chip will throttle itself back and
> > idle time will be skewed -- at least o
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 12:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please reduce the number of filesystems, see if that reduces the
> > dirty levels?
>
> Also, it's conceivable that ext3 is implicated here, so it might be saner
> to perform initial
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:59 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
>
> > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> > iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
>
> Could you also try with shared writable mmap, to s
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
>
> > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> > iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
>
> Could you also try with shared writable mmap, to see if that
>
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
Could you also try with shared writable mmap, to see if that
works ok or triggers a deadlock ?
--
The Theory of Esc
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 15:31 -0400, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:39:11AM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I w
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 12:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please reduce the number of filesystems, see if that reduces the
> > dirty levels?
>
> Also, it's conceivable that ext3 is implicated here, so it might be saner
> to perform initial
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:39:11AM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> > > iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we ar
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you please reduce the number of filesystems, see if that reduces the
> dirty levels?
Also, it's conceivable that ext3 is implicated here, so it might be saner
to perform initial investigation on ext2.
(when kjournald writes back a page via its buf
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> > > iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> > iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
> >
> > I created 50 10-GB ext3 filesystems on iSCS
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> After KS & OLS discussions about memory pressure, I wanted to re-do
> iSCSI testing with "dd"s to see if we are throttling writes.
>
> I created 50 10-GB ext3 filesystems on iSCSI luns. Test is simple
> 50 dds (one per filesystem). System seems
Badari> I created 50 10-GB ext3 filesystems on iSCSI luns. Test is
Badari> simple 50 dds (one per filesystem). System seems to
Badari> throttle memory properly and making progress. (Machine
Badari> doesn't respond very well for anything else, but my vmstat
Badari> keeps running
27 matches
Mail list logo
