> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org> wrote:
> > KOSAKI Motohiro (
kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> > On ChromiumOS, we do not use swap. When memory is low, the only way to
> >> > free memory is to reclaim pages from the file list. This results in a
> >> > lot of thrashing under low memory conditions. We see the system become
> >> > unresponsive for minutes before it eventually OOMs. We also see very
> >> > slow browser tab switching under low memory. Instead of an unresponsive
> >> > system, we'd really like the kernel to OOM as soon as it starts to
> >> > thrash. If it can't keep the working set in memory, then OOM.
> >> > Losing one of many tabs is a better behaviour for the user than an
> >> > unresponsive system.
> >> >
> >> > This patch create a new sysctl, min_filelist_kbytes, which disables reclaim
> >> > of file-backed pages when when there are less than min_filelist_bytes worth
> >> > of such pages in the cache. This tunable is handy for low memory systems
> >> > using solid-state storage where interactive response is more important
> >> > than not OOMing.
> >> >
> >> > With this patch and min_filelist_kbytes set to 50000, I see very little
> >> > block layer activity during low memory. The system stays responsive under
> >> > low memory and browser tab switching is fast. Eventually, a process a gets
> >> > killed by OOM. Without this patch, the system gets wedged for minutes
> >> > before it eventually OOMs. Below is the vmstat output from my test runs.
> >>
> >> I've heared similar requirement sometimes from embedded people. then also
> >> don't use swap. then, I don't think this is hopeless idea. but I hope to
> >> clarify some thing at first.
> >>
> >
> > swap would be intersting if we could somehow control swap thrashing. Maybe
> > we could add min_anonlist_kbytes. Just kidding:)
> >
> >> Yes, a system often have should-not-be-evicted-file-caches. Typically, they
> >> are libc, libX11 and some GUI libraries. Traditionally, we was making tiny
> >> application which linked above important lib and call mlockall() at startup.
> >> such technique prevent reclaim. So, Q1: Why do you think above traditional way
> >> is insufficient?
> >>
> >
> > mlock is too coarse grain. It requires locking the whole file in memory.
> > The chrome and X binaries are quite large so locking them would waste a lot
> > of memory. We could lock just the pages that are part of the working set but
> > that is difficult to do in practice. Its unmaintainable if you do it
> > statically. If you do it at runtime by mlocking the working set, you're
> > sort of giving up on mm's active list.
> >
> > Like akpm, I'm sad that we need this patch. I'd rather the kernel did a better
> > job of identifying the working set. We did look at ways to do a better
> > job of keeping the working set in the active list but these were tricker
> > patches and never quite worked out. This patch is simple and works great.
> >
> > Under memory pressure, I see the active list get smaller and smaller. Its
> > getting smaller because we're scanning it faster and faster, causing more
> > and more page faults which slows forward progress resulting in the active
> > list getting smaller still. One way to approach this might to make the
> > scan rate constant and configurable. It doesn't seem right that we scan
> > memory faster and faster under low memory. For us, we'd rather OOM than
> > evict pages that are likely to be accessed again so we'd prefer to make
> > a conservative estimate as to what belongs in the working set. Other
> > folks (long computations) might want to reclaim more aggressively.
> >
> >> Q2: In the above you used min_filelist_kbytes=50000. How do you decide
> >> such value? Do other users can calculate proper value?
> >>
> >
> > 50M was small enough that we were comfortable with keeping 50M of file pages
> > in memory and large enough that it is bigger than the working set. I tested
> > by loading up a bunch of popular web sites in chrome and then observing what
> > happend when I ran out of memory. With 50M, I saw almost no thrashing and
> > the system stayed responsive even under low memory. but I wanted to be
> > conservative since I'm really just guessing.
> >
> > Other users could calculate their value by doing something similar. Load
> > up the system (exhaust free memory) with a typical load and then observe
> > file io via vmstat. They can then set min_filelist_kbytes to the value
> > where they see a tolerable amounting of thrashing (page faults, block io).
> >
> >> In addition, I have two request. R1: I think chromium specific feature is
> >> harder acceptable because it's harder maintable. but we have good chance to
> >> solve embedded generic issue. Please discuss Minchan and/or another embedded
> >
> > I think this feature should be useful to a lot of embedded applications where
> > OOM is OK, especially web browsing applications where the user is OK with
> > losing 1 of many tabs they have open. However, I consider this patch a
> > stop-gap. I think the real solution is to do a better job of protecting
> > the active list.
> >
> >> developers. R2: If you want to deal OOM combination, please consider to
> >> combination of memcg OOM notifier too. It is most flexible and powerful OOM
> >> mechanism. Probably desktop and server people never use bare OOM killer intentionally.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, will definitely look at OOM notifier. Currently trying to see if we can
> > get by with oomadj. With OOM notifier you'd have to respond earlier so you
> > might OOM more. However, with a notifier you might be able to take action that
> > might prevent OOM altogether.
> >
> > I see memcg more as an isolation mechanism but I guess you could use it to
> > isolate the working set from anon browser tab data as Kamezawa suggests.
>
>
> I don't think current VM behavior has a problem.
> Current problem is that you use up many memory than real memory.
> As system memory without swap is low, VM doesn't have a many choice.
> It ends up evict your working set to meet for user request. It's very
> natural result for greedy user.
>
> Rather than OOM notifier, what we need is memory notifier.
> AFAIR, before some years ago, KOSAKI tried similar thing .
>
http://lwn.net/Articles/268732/
