search for: reclaim

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim...

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim...

On 1/1/19 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. > However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a > background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only > available during requests. > > Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* > function checks whether there is work to do...

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim...

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim...

The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only available during requests. Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* function checks whether there is work to do, and if there is will reclaim...

v3 was broken by a bad rebase, so let's forget about that one. Compared to v2: - Patch 1 is the same except for a minor comment change. - Patch 2 splits the reclaim code into a separate file (filters/cache/reclaim.c) - Addressed Eric's comments from his review of v2. - Retested on Linux and FreeBSD.

...ching a NIC (or individual Rx rings on the NIC) to polling mode. The receive interrupt will become not only rarer, but more importantly outside the control of the NIC drivers. Some drivers, on the other hand, were designed and written before that change. They used to piggy-back the tx descriptor reclaiming at the end of the Rx interrupt for example. At the same time, they disable to transmit interrupt all together, in an effort to minimize the number of interrupts to the host (and the entailed context switches). As expected, that sort of approach will (and it was actually observed) lead to qui...

On 1/3/19 6:37 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. > However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a > background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only > available during requests. > > Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* > function checks whether there is work to do...

Patch 1 is the same as last time, except for a minor comment fix. Patch 2 should address everything that Eric mentioned in his review, and has been retested. Rich.

I'm getting constantly high numbers of page reclaims & involuntary context switches for dovecot/auth. page reclaims = minor faults = cpu switching back to system-mode, But why is the auth process doing that so excessively? Same for the large number of involuntary context switches... Attached is my "dovecot -n" output. Date: Sun, 07...

These are essentially identical to what was previously posted as patches 6/9 through 9/9 here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2018-December/msg00145.html except that it has been rebased onto the current git master and retested thoroughly. Rich.

On 15 Dec 2016, at 07:26, haifeng.qin at wellintech.com via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > For help: > > for loop lead to stack overflow, want to actively reclaim stack memory of alloc instruction. > > How to actively reclaim stack memory ? This sounds as if you’re putting the alloca inside the loop, not in the entry basic block and reusing it. If you need the same amount of storage for each loop iteration, then you should put the alloca in the entr...

Gents, We want to understand the mechanism of zfs a bit better. Q: what is the design/algorithm of zfs in terms of reclaiming unused blocks? Q: what criteria is there for zfs to start reclaiming blocks Issue at hand is an LDOM or zone running in a virtual (thin-provisioned) disk on a NFS server and a zpool inside that vdisk. This vdisk tends to grow in size even if the user writes and deletes a file again. Question...

v4: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-January/msg00032.html v5: - Now we set the block size at run time. I'd like to say that I was able to test this change, but unfortunately I couldn't find any easy way to create a filesystem on x86-64 with a block size > 4K. Ext4 doesn't support it at all, and XFS doesn't support block size > page size (and I

...sooner or later (I would much rather like the former) so > > do not build a new logic on top of it. I would appreciate if you > > actually remove the notifier much more. > > > > You can give memory back from the standard shrinker interface. If we are > > reaching low reclaim priorities then we are struggling to reclaim memory > > and then you can start returning pages back. > > OK. Just curious why oom notifier is thought to be hideous, and has it been > a consensus? Because it is a completely non-transparent callout from the OOM context which is reall...

...shrink the page cache. [1] > "When inflating the balloon against page cache (i.e. no free memory > remains) vmscan.c will both shrink page cache, but also invoke the > shrinkers -- including the balloon's shrinker. So the balloon > driver allocates memory which requires reclaim, vmscan gets this > memory by shrinking the balloon, and then the driver adds the > memory back to the balloon. Basically a busy no-op." > > The name "deflate on OOM" makes it pretty clear when deflation should > happen - after other approaches to reclaim memory f...

...shrink the page cache. [1] > "When inflating the balloon against page cache (i.e. no free memory > remains) vmscan.c will both shrink page cache, but also invoke the > shrinkers -- including the balloon's shrinker. So the balloon > driver allocates memory which requires reclaim, vmscan gets this > memory by shrinking the balloon, and then the driver adds the > memory back to the balloon. Basically a busy no-op." > > The name "deflate on OOM" makes it pretty clear when deflation should > happen - after other approaches to reclaim memory f...

For help: for loop lead to stack overflow, want to actively reclaim stack memory of alloc instruction. How to actively reclaim stack memory ? haifeng.qin at wellintech.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161215/54b3b18c/attachment.html>

...get a date stamp for the dmesg? At least on CentOS7: dmesg -T ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hyatt" <dhyatt at dsgmail.wustl.edu> To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:36:46 PM Subject: [CentOS] Lockd: failed to reclaim lock for pid ... My environment is "heterogeneous" my authentication and home server are currently stuck on a 1G shared network, the production servers and storage servers are on a bonded 40G network, all are in the same VLAN. I have about 100 servers on the 40GB bonded network each w...