Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:42:04 -0500 From: "Jonathan Anderson" <jonathan@FreeBSD.org> To: "Matthew Macy" <mmacy@nextbsd.org> Cc: markj@freebsd.org, alc@freebsd.org, "freebsd-current Current" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour Message-ID: <74A6C6D0-90A4-4DB2-8D89-5D2B1E495F88@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1596d0f6d6d.1266583c3319360.3590554896761456790@nextbsd.org> References: <CAMGEAwBknRjecXFyyFGWFQtstX1OiOUvQoVsb9RXj7rmMQ6dDA@mail.gmail.com> <1596d0f6d6d.1266583c3319360.3590554896761456790@nextbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5 Jan 2017, at 0:17, Matthew Macy wrote: > ---- On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 06:01:50 -0800 Jonathan Anderson > <jonathan@freebsd.org> wrote ---- >> Hi all, >> >> I'm seeing some unexpected PQ_LAUNDRY behaviour on something fairly >> close >> to -CURRENT (drm-next-4.7 with an IFC on 26 Dec). Aside from the use >> of >> not-quite-CURRENT, it's also very possible that I don't understand >> how the >> laundry queue is supposed to work. Nonetheless, I thought I'd check >> whether >> there is a tunable I should change, an issue with the laundry queue >> itself, >> etc. >> >> After running X overnight (i915 can now run overnight on >> drm-next-4.7!), I >> end up with a little over half of my system memory in the laundry >> queue and >> a bunch of swap utilization. Even after closing X and shutting down >> lots of >> services, I see the following in top: > > > Please try the drm-next branch now. Up until very recently, the > shrinkers responsible for culling ttm/gem allocations were never run. > I've now implemented the shrinker, but it's driven from vm_lowmem, so > you'll probably still see what looks like a leak until you hit low > memory conditions. The shrinker should probably be run from > uma_timeout, but there isn't an eventhandler for that and I haven't > looked any further. > > -M Hi, I am now testing the `drm-next` branch, but I'm finding it crashes much more frequently (a la https://github.com/FreeBSDDesktop/freebsd-base-graphics/issues/96) than `drm-next-4.7`. While the 4.7 branch would sometimes only last a few minutes, it would sometimes run for a day or more. On `drm-next`, however, I think I'm yet to have 20 minutes of uptime. So, I haven't run into the memory shrinker yet because I haven't had enough uptime to use lots of memory. :) I will continue testing... any specific things I ought to be doing? Jon -- jonathan@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?74A6C6D0-90A4-4DB2-8D89-5D2B1E495F88>