Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-26 Thread Shaohua Li
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:42:06AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:11:18PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:08:09AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-25 Thread Minchan Kim
Hello, On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:11:18PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:08:09AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-25 Thread Shaohua Li
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:11:18PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:08:09AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 24-02-15 17:18:14, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > Recently, Shaohua reported tha

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-25 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 25-02-15 16:11:18, Minchan Kim wrote: [...] > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > index 6d0fcb8921c2..d41ae76d3e54 100644 > --- a/mm/madvise.c > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > @@ -274,7 +274,9 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned > long addr, > spinlock_t *ptl; >

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-25 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 24-02-15 14:54:01, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 24-02-15 17:18:14, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Recently, Shaohua reported that MADV_FREE is much slower than > > > MADV_DONTNEED in his MADV_FREE bomb test. The reason is many of > >

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-24 Thread Minchan Kim
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:08:09AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 24-02-15 17:18:14, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Recently, Shaohua reported that MADV_FREE is much slower than > > > MADV_DONTNEED in his MADV_FREE bomb

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-24 Thread Minchan Kim
Hi Michal, On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 24-02-15 17:18:14, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Recently, Shaohua reported that MADV_FREE is much slower than > > MADV_DONTNEED in his MADV_FREE bomb test. The reason is many of > > applications went to stall with direct r

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-24 Thread Shaohua Li
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 24-02-15 17:18:14, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Recently, Shaohua reported that MADV_FREE is much slower than > > MADV_DONTNEED in his MADV_FREE bomb test. The reason is many of > > applications went to stall with direct reclaim since

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: throttle MADV_FREE

2015-02-24 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 24-02-15 17:18:14, Minchan Kim wrote: > Recently, Shaohua reported that MADV_FREE is much slower than > MADV_DONTNEED in his MADV_FREE bomb test. The reason is many of > applications went to stall with direct reclaim since kswapd's > reclaim speed isn't fast than applications's allocation sp