Hi, 

While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following.

==
[root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks
[root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
32768
[root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
286
// Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB)
 
[root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576
Killed
[root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls
Killed
//above are caused by OOM.
[root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
32763
[root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
32768
// fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run.
==

The reason  this happens is  because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e
ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE.

Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this.
I'll continue to watch.

Thanks,
-Kame
==
Now, there is ZONE_MOVABLE...

page cache and user pages are allocated from gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE)

Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
 mm/vmscan.c |    9 ++-------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak.orig/mm/vmscan.c
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1351,12 +1351,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEM_CONT
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
-#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_HIGHMEM
-#else
-#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_NORMAL
-#endif
-
 unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_pages(struct mem_container *mem_cont)
 {
 	struct scan_control sc = {
@@ -1371,9 +1365,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_
 	};
 	int node;
 	struct zone **zones;
+	int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE);
 
 	for_each_online_node(node) {
-		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[ZONE_USERPAGES].zones;
+		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones;
 		if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc))
 			return 1;
 	}






_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following.
> 
> ==
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
> 32768
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
> 286
> // Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB)
> 
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576
> Killed
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls
> Killed
> //above are caused by OOM.
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
> 32763
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
> 32768
> // fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run.
> ==
> 
> The reason  this happens is  because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e
> ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE.
> 
> Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this.
> I'll continue to watch.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Kame
> ==
> Now, there is ZONE_MOVABLE...
> 
> page cache and user pages are allocated from gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE)
> 
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |    9 ++-------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak.orig/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1351,12 +1351,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEM_CONT
> 
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_HIGHMEM
> -#else
> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_NORMAL
> -#endif
> -
>  unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_pages(struct mem_container *mem_cont)
>  {
>  	struct scan_control sc = {
> @@ -1371,9 +1365,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_
>  	};
>  	int node;
>  	struct zone **zones;
> +	int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE);
> 
>  	for_each_online_node(node) {
> -		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[ZONE_USERPAGES].zones;
> +		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones;
>  		if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc))
>  			return 1;
>  	}

Mel, has sent out a fix (for the single zonelist) that conflicts with
this one. Your fix looks correct to me, but it will be over ridden
by Mel's fix (once those patches are in -mm).

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:00:06 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> Mel, has sent out a fix (for the single zonelist) that conflicts with
> this one. Your fix looks correct to me, but it will be over ridden
> by Mel's fix (once those patches are in -mm).
> 
Ah yes. just for notification.

thanks,
-Kame

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

On (13/09/07 19:07), KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki didst pronounce:
> Hi, 
> 
> While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following.
> 
> ==
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
> 32768
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
> 286
> // Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB)
>  
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576
> Killed
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls
> Killed
> //above are caused by OOM.
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
> 32763
> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
> 32768
> // fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run.
> ==
> 
> The reason  this happens is  because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e
> ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE.
> 
> Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this.
> I'll continue to watch.
> 

You are right on both counts. This is a valid fix but
one-zonelist-pernode overwrites it. Specifically the code in question
with one-zonelist will look like;

	for_each_online_node(node) {
		zonelist = &NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelist;
		if (do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, sc.gfp_mask, &sc))
			return 1;
	}

We should be careful that this problem does not get forgotten about if
one-zonelist gets delayed for a long period of time. Have the fix at the
end of the container patchset where it can be easily dropped if
one-zonelist is merged.

Thanks

> Thanks,
> -Kame
> ==
> Now, there is ZONE_MOVABLE...
> 
> page cache and user pages are allocated from gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE)
> 
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>

> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |    9 ++-------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak.orig/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1351,12 +1351,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEM_CONT
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_HIGHMEM
> -#else
> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_NORMAL
> -#endif
> -
>  unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_pages(struct mem_container *mem_cont)
>  {
>  	struct scan_control sc = {
> @@ -1371,9 +1365,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_
>  	};
>  	int node;
>  	struct zone **zones;
> +	int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE);
>  
>  	for_each_online_node(node) {
> -		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[ZONE_USERPAGES].zones;
> +		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones;
>  		if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc))
>  			return 1;
>  	}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

-- 
-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

Mel Gorman wrote:
> On (13/09/07 19:07), KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki didst pronounce:
>> Hi, 
>>
>> While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following.
>>
>> ==
>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks
>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
>> 32768
>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
>> 286
>> // Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB)
>>  
>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576
>> Killed
>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls
>> Killed
>> //above are caused by OOM.
>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
>> 32763
>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
>> 32768
>> // fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run.
>> ==
>>
>> The reason  this happens is  because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e
>> ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE.
>>
>> Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this.
>> I'll continue to watch.
>>
> 
> You are right on both counts. This is a valid fix but
> one-zonelist-pernode overwrites it. Specifically the code in question
> with one-zonelist will look like;
> 
> 	for_each_online_node(node) {
> 		zonelist = &NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelist;
> 		if (do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, sc.gfp_mask, &sc))
> 			return 1;
> 	}
> 
> We should be careful that this problem does not get forgotten about if
> one-zonelist gets delayed for a long period of time. Have the fix at the
> end of the container patchset where it can be easily dropped if
> one-zonelist is merged.
> 
> Thanks

Yes, I second that. So, we should get KAMEZAWA's fix in.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:00:06 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following.
> > 
> > ==
> > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks
> > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
> > 32768
> > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
> > 286
> > // Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB)
> > 
> > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576
> > Killed
> > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls
> > Killed
> > //above are caused by OOM.
> > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
> > 32763
> > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
> > 32768
> > // fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run.
> > ==
> > 
> > The reason  this happens is  because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e
> > ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE.
> > 
> > Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this.
> > I'll continue to watch.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Kame
> > ==
> > Now, there is ZONE_MOVABLE...
> > 
> > page cache and user pages are allocated from gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmscan.c |    9 ++-------
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak.orig/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1351,12 +1351,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z
> > 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEM_CONT
> > 
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> > -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_HIGHMEM
> > -#else
> > -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_NORMAL
> > -#endif
> > -
> >  unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_pages(struct mem_container *mem_cont)
> >  {
> >  	struct scan_control sc = {
> > @@ -1371,9 +1365,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_
> >  	};
> >  	int node;
> >  	struct zone **zones;
> > +	int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE);
> > 
> >  	for_each_online_node(node) {
> > -		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[ZONE_USERPAGES].zones;
> > +		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones;
> >  		if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc))
> >  			return 1;
> >  	}
> 
> Mel, has sent out a fix (for the single zonelist) that conflicts with
> this one. Your fix looks correct to me, but it will be over ridden
> by Mel's fix (once those patches are in -mm).
> 

"mel's fix" is rather too imprecise a term for me to make head or tail of this.

Oh well, the patch basically applied, so I whacked it in there, designated
as to be folded into memory-controller-make-charging-gfp-mask-aware.patch
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:00:06 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>> Hi, 
>>>
>>> While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following.
>>>
>>> ==
>>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks
>>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
>>> 32768
>>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
>>> 286
>>> // Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB)
>>>
>>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576
>>> Killed
>>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls
>>> Killed
>>> //above are caused by OOM.
>>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage
>>> 32763
>>> [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit
>>> 32768
>>> // fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run.
>>> ==
>>>
>>> The reason  this happens is  because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e
>>> ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE.
>>>
>>> Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this.
>>> I'll continue to watch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Kame
>>> ==
>>> Now, there is ZONE_MOVABLE...
>>>
>>> page cache and user pages are allocated from gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>>  mm/vmscan.c |    9 ++-------
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak.orig/mm/vmscan.c
>>> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c
>>> @@ -1351,12 +1351,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z
>>>
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEM_CONT
>>>
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
>>> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_HIGHMEM
>>> -#else
>>> -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_NORMAL
>>> -#endif
>>> -
>>>  unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_pages(struct mem_container *mem_cont)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct scan_control sc = {
>>> @@ -1371,9 +1365,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_
>>>  	};
>>>  	int node;
>>>  	struct zone **zones;
>>> +	int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE);
>>>
>>>  	for_each_online_node(node) {
>>> -		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[ZONE_USERPAGES].zones;
>>> +		zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones;
>>>  		if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc))
>>>  			return 1;
>>>  	}
>> Mel, has sent out a fix (for the single zonelist) that conflicts with
>> this one. Your fix looks correct to me, but it will be over ridden
>> by Mel's fix (once those patches are in -mm).
>>
> 
> "mel's fix" is rather too imprecise a term for me to make head or tail of this.
> 
> Oh well, the patch basically applied, so I whacked it in there, designated
> as to be folded into memory-controller-make-charging-gfp-mask-aware.patch

I agree that this fix is required and may be over-written by Mel'ls
patches in the future, but for now this is the correct fix. Thanks
for applying it.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers