| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
__remove_mapping() assumes that pages can only be either base pages or
HPAGE_PMD_SIZE. Ask the page what size it is.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191017164223.2762148-4-songliubraving@fb.com
Fixes: 99cb0dbd47a1 ("mm,thp: add read-only THP support for (non-shmem) FS")
Signed-off-by: William Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Acked-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
lru_zone_size
Commit 1a61ab8038e72 ("mm: memcontrol: replace zone summing with
lruvec_page_state()") has made lruvec_page_state to use per-cpu counters
instead of calculating it directly from lru_zone_size with an idea that
this would be more effective.
Tim has reported that this is not really the case for their database
benchmark which is showing an opposite results where lruvec_page_state
is taking up a huge chunk of CPU cycles (about 25% of the system time
which is roughly 7% of total cpu cycles) on 5.3 kernels. The workload
is running on a larger machine (96cpus), it has many cgroups (500) and
it is heavily direct reclaim bound.
Tim Chen said:
: The problem can also be reproduced by running simple multi-threaded
: pmbench benchmark with a fast Optane SSD swap (see profile below).
:
:
: 6.15% 3.08% pmbench [kernel.vmlinux] [k] lruvec_lru_size
: |
: |--3.07%--lruvec_lru_size
: | |
: | |--2.11%--cpumask_next
: | | |
: | | --1.66%--find_next_bit
: | |
: | --0.57%--call_function_interrupt
: | |
: | --0.55%--smp_call_function_interrupt
: |
: |--1.59%--0x441f0fc3d009
: | _ops_rdtsc_init_base_freq
: | access_histogram
: | page_fault
: | __do_page_fault
: | handle_mm_fault
: | __handle_mm_fault
: | |
: | --1.54%--do_swap_page
: | swapin_readahead
: | swap_cluster_readahead
: | |
: | --1.53%--read_swap_cache_async
: | __read_swap_cache_async
: | alloc_pages_vma
: | __alloc_pages_nodemask
: | __alloc_pages_slowpath
: | try_to_free_pages
: | do_try_to_free_pages
: | shrink_node
: | shrink_node_memcg
: | |
: | |--0.77%--lruvec_lru_size
: | |
: | --0.76%--inactive_list_is_low
: | |
: | --0.76%--lruvec_lru_size
: |
: --1.50%--measure_read
: page_fault
: __do_page_fault
: handle_mm_fault
: __handle_mm_fault
: do_swap_page
: swapin_readahead
: swap_cluster_readahead
: |
: --1.48%--read_swap_cache_async
: __read_swap_cache_async
: alloc_pages_vma
: __alloc_pages_nodemask
: __alloc_pages_slowpath
: try_to_free_pages
: do_try_to_free_pages
: shrink_node
: shrink_node_memcg
: |
: |--0.75%--inactive_list_is_low
: | |
: | --0.75%--lruvec_lru_size
: |
: --0.73%--lruvec_lru_size
The likely culprit is the cache traffic the lruvec_page_state_local
generates. Dave Hansen says:
: I was thinking purely of the cache footprint. If it's reading
: pn->lruvec_stat_local->count[idx] is three separate cachelines, so 192
: bytes of cache *96 CPUs = 18k of data, mostly read-only. 1 cgroup would
: be 18k of data for the whole system and the caching would be pretty
: efficient and all 18k would probably survive a tight page fault loop in
: the L1. 500 cgroups would be ~90k of data per CPU thread which doesn't
: fit in the L1 and probably wouldn't survive a tight page fault loop if
: both logical threads were banging on different cgroups.
:
: It's just a theory, but it's why I noted the number of cgroups when I
: initially saw this show up in profiles
Fix the regression by partially reverting the said commit and calculate
the lru size explicitly.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190905071034.16822-1-honglei.wang@oracle.com
Fixes: 1a61ab8038e72 ("mm: memcontrol: replace zone summing with lruvec_page_state()")
Signed-off-by: Honglei Wang <honglei.wang@oracle.com>
Reported-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> [5.2+]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
This patch is an incremental improvement on the existing
memory.{low,min} relative reclaim work to base its scan pressure
calculations on how much protection is available compared to the current
usage, rather than how much the current usage is over some protection
threshold.
This change doesn't change the experience for the user in the normal
case too much. One benefit is that it replaces the (somewhat arbitrary)
100% cutoff with an indefinite slope, which makes it easier to ballpark
a memory.low value.
As well as this, the old methodology doesn't quite apply generically to
machines with varying amounts of physical memory. Let's say we have a
top level cgroup, workload.slice, and another top level cgroup,
system-management.slice. We want to roughly give 12G to
system-management.slice, so on a 32GB machine we set memory.low to 20GB
in workload.slice, and on a 64GB machine we set memory.low to 52GB.
However, because these are relative amounts to the total machine size,
while the amount of memory we want to generally be willing to yield to
system.slice is absolute (12G), we end up putting more pressure on
system.slice just because we have a larger machine and a larger workload
to fill it, which seems fairly unintuitive. With this new behaviour, we
don't end up with this unintended side effect.
Previously the way that memory.low protection works is that if you are
50% over a certain baseline, you get 50% of your normal scan pressure.
This is certainly better than the previous cliff-edge behaviour, but it
can be improved even further by always considering memory under the
currently enforced protection threshold to be out of bounds. This means
that we can set relatively low memory.low thresholds for variable or
bursty workloads while still getting a reasonable level of protection,
whereas with the previous version we may still trivially hit the 100%
clamp. The previous 100% clamp is also somewhat arbitrary, whereas this
one is more concretely based on the currently enforced protection
threshold, which is likely easier to reason about.
There is also a subtle issue with the way that proportional reclaim
worked previously -- it promotes having no memory.low, since it makes
pressure higher during low reclaim. This happens because we base our
scan pressure modulation on how far memory.current is between memory.min
and memory.low, but if memory.low is unset, we only use the overage
method. In most cromulent configurations, this then means that we end
up with *more* pressure than with no memory.low at all when we're in low
reclaim, which is not really very usable or expected.
With this patch, memory.low and memory.min affect reclaim pressure in a
more understandable and composable way. For example, from a user
standpoint, "protected" memory now remains untouchable from a reclaim
aggression standpoint, and users can also have more confidence that
bursty workloads will still receive some amount of guaranteed
protection.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190322160307.GA3316@chrisdown.name
Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Roman points out that when when we do the low reclaim pass, we scale the
reclaim pressure relative to position between 0 and the maximum
protection threshold.
However, if the maximum protection is based on memory.elow, and
memory.emin is above zero, this means we still may get binary behaviour
on second-pass low reclaim. This is because we scale starting at 0, not
starting at memory.emin, and since we don't scan at all below emin, we
end up with cliff behaviour.
This should be a fairly uncommon case since usually we don't go into the
second pass, but it makes sense to scale our low reclaim pressure
starting at emin.
You can test this by catting two large sparse files, one in a cgroup
with emin set to some moderate size compared to physical RAM, and
another cgroup without any emin. In both cgroups, set an elow larger
than 50% of physical RAM. The one with emin will have less page
scanning, as reclaim pressure is lower.
Rebase on top of and apply the same idea as what was applied to handle
cgroup_memory=disable properly for the original proportional patch
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201045711.GA18302@chrisdown.name ("mm,
memcg: Handle cgroup_disable=memory when getting memcg protection").
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201051810.GA18895@chrisdown.name
Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
cgroup v2 introduces two memory protection thresholds: memory.low
(best-effort) and memory.min (hard protection). While they generally do
what they say on the tin, there is a limitation in their implementation
that makes them difficult to use effectively: that cliff behaviour often
manifests when they become eligible for reclaim. This patch implements
more intuitive and usable behaviour, where we gradually mount more
reclaim pressure as cgroups further and further exceed their protection
thresholds.
This cliff edge behaviour happens because we only choose whether or not
to reclaim based on whether the memcg is within its protection limits
(see the use of mem_cgroup_protected in shrink_node), but we don't vary
our reclaim behaviour based on this information. Imagine the following
timeline, with the numbers the lruvec size in this zone:
1. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=999999. 0 pages may be scanned.
2. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=1000000. 0 pages may be scanned.
3. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=1000001. 1000001* pages may be
scanned. (?!)
* Of course, we won't usually scan all available pages in the zone even
without this patch because of scan control priority, over-reclaim
protection, etc. However, as shown by the tests at the end, these
techniques don't sufficiently throttle such an extreme change in input,
so cliff-like behaviour isn't really averted by their existence alone.
Here's an example of how this plays out in practice. At Facebook, we are
trying to protect various workloads from "system" software, like
configuration management tools, metric collectors, etc (see this[0] case
study). In order to find a suitable memory.low value, we start by
determining the expected memory range within which the workload will be
comfortable operating. This isn't an exact science -- memory usage deemed
"comfortable" will vary over time due to user behaviour, differences in
composition of work, etc, etc. As such we need to ballpark memory.low,
but doing this is currently problematic:
1. If we end up setting it too low for the workload, it won't have
*any* effect (see discussion above). The group will receive the full
weight of reclaim and won't have any priority while competing with the
less important system software, as if we had no memory.low configured
at all.
2. Because of this behaviour, we end up erring on the side of setting
it too high, such that the comfort range is reliably covered. However,
protected memory is completely unavailable to the rest of the system,
so we might cause undue memory and IO pressure there when we *know* we
have some elasticity in the workload.
3. Even if we get the value totally right, smack in the middle of the
comfort zone, we get extreme jumps between no pressure and full
pressure that cause unpredictable pressure spikes in the workload due
to the current binary reclaim behaviour.
With this patch, we can set it to our ballpark estimation without too much
worry. Any undesirable behaviour, such as too much or too little reclaim
pressure on the workload or system will be proportional to how far our
estimation is off. This means we can set memory.low much more
conservatively and thus waste less resources *without* the risk of the
workload falling off a cliff if we overshoot.
As a more abstract technical description, this unintuitive behaviour
results in having to give high-priority workloads a large protection
buffer on top of their expected usage to function reliably, as otherwise
we have abrupt periods of dramatically increased memory pressure which
hamper performance. Having to set these thresholds so high wastes
resources and generally works against the principle of work conservation.
In addition, having proportional memory reclaim behaviour has other
benefits. Most notably, before this patch it's basically mandatory to set
memory.low to a higher than desirable value because otherwise as soon as
you exceed memory.low, all protection is lost, and all pages are eligible
to scan again. By contrast, having a gradual ramp in reclaim pressure
means that you now still get some protection when thresholds are exceeded,
which means that one can now be more comfortable setting memory.low to
lower values without worrying that all protection will be lost. This is
important because workingset size is really hard to know exactly,
especially with variable workloads, so at least getting *some* protection
if your workingset size grows larger than you expect increases user
confidence in setting memory.low without a huge buffer on top being
needed.
Thanks a lot to Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo for their advice and
assistance in thinking about how to make this work better.
In testing these changes, I intended to verify that:
1. Changes in page scanning become gradual and proportional instead of
binary.
To test this, I experimented stepping further and further down
memory.low protection on a workload that floats around 19G workingset
when under memory.low protection, watching page scan rates for the
workload cgroup:
+------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+
| memory.low | test (pgscan/s) | control (pgscan/s) | % of control |
+------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+
| 21G | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| 17G | 867 | 3799 | 23% |
| 12G | 1203 | 3543 | 34% |
| 8G | 2534 | 3979 | 64% |
| 4G | 3980 | 4147 | 96% |
| 0 | 3799 | 3980 | 95% |
+------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+
As you can see, the test kernel (with a kernel containing this
patch) ramps up page scanning significantly more gradually than the
control kernel (without this patch).
2. More gradual ramp up in reclaim aggression doesn't result in
premature OOMs.
To test this, I wrote a script that slowly increments the number of
pages held by stress(1)'s --vm-keep mode until a production system
entered severe overall memory contention. This script runs in a highly
protected slice taking up the majority of available system memory.
Watching vmstat revealed that page scanning continued essentially
nominally between test and control, without causing forward reclaim
progress to become arrested.
[0]: https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/cgroup2/docs/overview.html#case-study-the-fbtax2-project
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: reflow block comments to fit in 80 cols]
[chris@chrisdown.name: handle cgroup_disable=memory when getting memcg protection]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201045711.GA18302@chrisdown.name
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190124014455.GA6396@chrisdown.name
Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
When a process expects no accesses to a certain memory range for a long
time, it could hint kernel that the pages can be reclaimed instantly but
data should be preserved for future use. This could reduce workingset
eviction so it ends up increasing performance.
This patch introduces the new MADV_PAGEOUT hint to madvise(2) syscall.
MADV_PAGEOUT can be used by a process to mark a memory range as not
expected to be used for a long time so that kernel reclaims *any LRU*
pages instantly. The hint can help kernel in deciding which pages to
evict proactively.
A note: It doesn't apply SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX LRU page isolation limit
intentionally because it's automatically bounded by PMD size. If PMD
size(e.g., 256) makes some trouble, we could fix it later by limit it to
SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX[1].
- man-page material
MADV_PAGEOUT (since Linux x.x)
Do not expect access in the near future so pages in the specified
regions could be reclaimed instantly regardless of memory pressure.
Thus, access in the range after successful operation could cause
major page fault but never lose the up-to-date contents unlike
MADV_DONTNEED. Pages belonging to a shared mapping are only processed
if a write access is allowed for the calling process.
MADV_PAGEOUT cannot be applied to locked pages, Huge TLB pages, or
VM_PFNMAP pages.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190710194719.GS29695@dhcp22.suse.cz/
[minchan@kernel.org: clear PG_active on MADV_PAGEOUT]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190802200643.GA181880@google.com
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: resolve conflicts with hmm.git]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190726023435.214162-5-minchan@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: James E.J. Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>
Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@redhat.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
The local variable references in shrink_page_list is PAGEREF_RECLAIM_CLEAN
as default. It is for preventing to reclaim dirty pages when CMA try to
migrate pages. Strictly speaking, we don't need it because CMA didn't
allow to write out by .may_writepage = 0 in reclaim_clean_pages_from_list.
Moreover, it has a problem to prevent anonymous pages's swap out even
though force_reclaim = true in shrink_page_list on upcoming patch. So
this patch makes references's default value to PAGEREF_RECLAIM and rename
force_reclaim with ignore_references to make it more clear.
This is a preparatory work for next patch.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190726023435.214162-3-minchan@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>
Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: James E.J. Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@redhat.com>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Currently shrinker is just allocated and can work when memcg kmem is
enabled. But, THP deferred split shrinker is not slab shrinker, it
doesn't make too much sense to have such shrinker depend on memcg kmem.
It should be able to reclaim THP even though memcg kmem is disabled.
Introduce a new shrinker flag, SHRINKER_NONSLAB, for non-slab shrinker.
When memcg kmem is disabled, just such shrinkers can be called in
shrinking memcg slab.
[yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com: add comment]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1566496227-84952-4-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1565144277-36240-4-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
A later patch makes THP deferred split shrinker memcg aware, but it needs
page->mem_cgroup information in THP destructor, which is called after
mem_cgroup_uncharge() now.
So move mem_cgroup_uncharge() from __page_cache_release() to compound page
destructor, which is called by both THP and other compound pages except
HugeTLB. And call it in __put_single_page() for single order page.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1565144277-36240-3-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Suggested-by: "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
After commit "mm, reclaim: make should_continue_reclaim perform dryrun
detection", closer look at the function shows, that nr_reclaimed == 0
means the function will always return false. And since non-zero
nr_reclaimed implies non_zero nr_scanned, testing nr_scanned serves no
purpose, and so does the testing for __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL.
This patch thus cleans up the function to test only !nr_reclaimed upfront,
and remove the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL test and nr_scanned parameter
completely. Comment is also updated, explaining that approximating "full
LRU list has been scanned" with nr_scanned == 0 didn't really work.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190806014744.15446-3-mike.kravetz@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Patch series "address hugetlb page allocation stalls", v2.
Allocation of hugetlb pages via sysctl or procfs can stall for minutes or
hours. A simple example on a two node system with 8GB of memory is as
follows:
echo 4096 > /sys/devices/system/node/node1/hugepages/hugepages-2048kB/nr_hugepages
echo 4096 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
Obviously, both allocation attempts will fall short of their 8GB goal.
However, one or both of these commands may stall and not be interruptible.
The issues were initially discussed in mail thread [1] and RFC code at
[2].
This series addresses the issues causing the stalls. There are two
distinct fixes, a cleanup, and an optimization. The reclaim patch by
Hillf and compaction patch by Vlasitmil address corner cases in their
respective areas. hugetlb page allocation could stall due to either of
these issues. Vlasitmil added a cleanup patch after Hillf's
modifications. The hugetlb patch by Mike is an optimization suggested
during the debug and development process.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/d38a095e-dc39-7e82-bb76-2c9247929f07@oracle.com
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190724175014.9935-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com
This patch (of 4):
Address the issue of should_continue_reclaim returning true too often for
__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL attempts when !nr_reclaimed and nr_scanned. This was
observed during hugetlb page allocation causing stalls for minutes or
hours.
We can stop reclaiming pages if compaction reports it can make a progress.
There might be side-effects for other high-order allocations that would
potentially benefit from reclaiming more before compaction so that they
would be faster and less likely to stall. However, the consequences of
premature/over-reclaim are considered worse.
We can also bail out of reclaiming pages if we know that there are not
enough inactive lru pages left to satisfy the costly allocation.
We can give up reclaiming pages too if we see dryrun occur, with the
certainty of plenty of inactive pages. IOW with dryrun detected, we are
sure we have reclaimed as many pages as we could.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190806014744.15446-2-mike.kravetz@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Tested-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
One of our services observed a high rate of cgroup OOM kills in the
presence of large amounts of clean cache. Debugging showed that the
culprit is the shared cgroup iteration in page reclaim.
Under high allocation concurrency, multiple threads enter reclaim at the
same time. Fearing overreclaim when we first switched from the single
global LRU to cgrouped LRU lists, we introduced a shared iteration state
for reclaim invocations - whether 1 or 20 reclaimers are active
concurrently, we only walk the cgroup tree once: the 1st reclaimer
reclaims the first cgroup, the second the second one etc. With more
reclaimers than cgroups, we start another walk from the top.
This sounded reasonable at the time, but the problem is that reclaim
concurrency doesn't scale with allocation concurrency. As reclaim
concurrency increases, the amount of memory individual reclaimers get to
scan gets smaller and smaller. Individual reclaimers may only see one
cgroup per cycle, and that may not have much reclaimable memory. We see
individual reclaimers declare OOM when there is plenty of reclaimable
memory available in cgroups they didn't visit.
This patch does away with the shared iterator, and every reclaimer is
allowed to scan the full cgroup tree and see all of reclaimable memory,
just like it would on a non-cgrouped system. This way, when OOM is
declared, we know that the reclaimer actually had a chance.
To still maintain fairness in reclaim pressure, disallow cgroup reclaim
from bailing out of the tree walk early. Kswapd and regular direct
reclaim already don't bail, so it's not clear why limit reclaim would have
to, especially since it only walks subtrees to begin with.
This change completely eliminates the OOM kills on our service, while
showing no signs of overreclaim - no increased scan rates, %sys time, or
abrupt free memory spikes. I tested across 100 machines that have 64G of
RAM and host about 300 cgroups each.
[ It's possible overreclaim never was a *practical* issue to begin
with - it was simply a concern we had on the mailing lists at the
time, with no real data to back it up. But we have also added more
bail-out conditions deeper inside reclaim (e.g. the proportional
exit in shrink_node_memcg) since. Regardless, now we have data that
suggests full walks are more reliable and scale just fine. ]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190812192316.13615-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Replace 1 << compound_order(page) with compound_nr(page). Minor
improvements in readability.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190721104612.19120-4-willy@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Adric Blake has noticed[1] the following warning:
WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 175 at mm/vmscan.c:245 set_task_reclaim_state+0x1e/0x40
[...]
Call Trace:
mem_cgroup_shrink_node+0x9b/0x1d0
mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim+0x10c/0x3a0
balance_pgdat+0x276/0x540
kswapd+0x200/0x3f0
? wait_woken+0x80/0x80
kthread+0xfd/0x130
? balance_pgdat+0x540/0x540
? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
---[ end trace 727343df67b2398a ]---
which tells us that soft limit reclaim is about to overwrite the
reclaim_state configured up in the call chain (kswapd in this case but
the direct reclaim is equally possible). This means that reclaim stats
would get misleading once the soft reclaim returns and another reclaim
is done.
Fix the warning by dropping set_task_reclaim_state from the soft reclaim
which is always called with reclaim_state set up.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAE1jjeePxYPvw1mw2B3v803xHVR_BNnz0hQUY_JDMN8ny29M6w@mail.gmail.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190828071808.20410-1-mhocko@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Reported-by: Adric Blake <promarbler14@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Dave Chinner reported a problem pointing a finger at commit 1c30844d2dfe
("mm: reclaim small amounts of memory when an external fragmentation
event occurs").
The report is extensive:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20190807091858.2857-1-david@fromorbit.com/
and it's worth recording the most relevant parts (colorful language and
typos included).
When running a simple, steady state 4kB file creation test to
simulate extracting tarballs larger than memory full of small
files into the filesystem, I noticed that once memory fills up
the cache balance goes to hell.
The workload is creating one dirty cached inode for every dirty
page, both of which should require a single IO each to clean and
reclaim, and creation of inodes is throttled by the rate at which
dirty writeback runs at (via balance dirty pages). Hence the ingest
rate of new cached inodes and page cache pages is identical and
steady. As a result, memory reclaim should quickly find a steady
balance between page cache and inode caches.
The moment memory fills, the page cache is reclaimed at a much
faster rate than the inode cache, and evidence suggests that
the inode cache shrinker is not being called when large batches
of pages are being reclaimed. In roughly the same time period
that it takes to fill memory with 50% pages and 50% slab caches,
memory reclaim reduces the page cache down to just dirty pages
and slab caches fill the entirety of memory.
The LRU is largely full of dirty pages, and we're getting spikes
of random writeback from memory reclaim so it's all going to shit.
Behaviour never recovers, the page cache remains pinned at just
dirty pages, and nothing I could tune would make any difference.
vfs_cache_pressure makes no difference - I would set it so high
it should trim the entire inode caches in a single pass, yet it
didn't do anything. It was clear from tracing and live telemetry
that the shrinkers were pretty much not running except when
there was absolutely no memory free at all, and then they did
the minimum necessary to free memory to make progress.
So I went looking at the code, trying to find places where pages
got reclaimed and the shrinkers weren't called. There's only one
- kswapd doing boosted reclaim as per commit 1c30844d2dfe ("mm:
reclaim small amounts of memory when an external fragmentation
event occurs").
The watermark boosting introduced by the commit is triggered in response
to an allocation "fragmentation event". The boosting was not intended
to target THP specifically and triggers even if THP is disabled.
However, with Dave's perfectly reasonable workload, fragmentation events
can be very common given the ratio of slab to page cache allocations so
boosting remains active for long periods of time.
As high-order allocations might use compaction and compaction cannot
move slab pages the decision was made in the commit to special-case
kswapd when watermarks are boosted -- kswapd avoids reclaiming slab as
reclaiming slab does not directly help compaction.
As Dave notes, this decision means that slab can be artificially
protected for long periods of time and messes up the balance with slab
and page caches.
Removing the special casing can still indirectly help avoid
fragmentation by avoiding fragmentation-causing events due to slab
allocation as pages from a slab pageblock will have some slab objects
freed. Furthermore, with the special casing, reclaim behaviour is
unpredictable as kswapd sometimes examines slab and sometimes does not
in a manner that is tricky to tune or analyse.
This patch removes the special casing. The downside is that this is not
a universal performance win. Some benchmarks that depend on the
residency of data when rereading metadata may see a regression when slab
reclaim is restored to its original behaviour. Similarly, some
benchmarks that only read-once or write-once may perform better when
page reclaim is too aggressive. The primary upside is that slab
shrinker is less surprising (arguably more sane but that's a matter of
opinion), behaves consistently regardless of the fragmentation state of
the system and properly obeys VM sysctls.
A fsmark benchmark configuration was constructed similar to what Dave
reported and is codified by the mmtest configuration
config-io-fsmark-small-file-stream. It was evaluated on a 1-socket
machine to avoid dealing with NUMA-related issues and the timing of
reclaim. The storage was an SSD Samsung Evo and a fresh trimmed XFS
filesystem was used for the test data.
This is not an exact replication of Dave's setup. The configuration
scales its parameters depending on the memory size of the SUT to behave
similarly across machines. The parameters mean the first sample
reported by fs_mark is using 50% of RAM which will barely be throttled
and look like a big outlier. Dave used fake NUMA to have multiple
kswapd instances which I didn't replicate. Finally, the number of
iterations differ from Dave's test as the target disk was not large
enough. While not identical, it should be representative.
fsmark
5.3.0-rc3 5.3.0-rc3
vanilla shrinker-v1r1
Min 1-files/sec 4444.80 ( 0.00%) 4765.60 ( 7.22%)
1st-qrtle 1-files/sec 5005.10 ( 0.00%) 5091.70 ( 1.73%)
2nd-qrtle 1-files/sec 4917.80 ( 0.00%) 4855.60 ( -1.26%)
3rd-qrtle 1-files/sec 4667.40 ( 0.00%) 4831.20 ( 3.51%)
Max-1 1-files/sec 11421.50 ( 0.00%) 9999.30 ( -12.45%)
Max-5 1-files/sec 11421.50 ( 0.00%) 9999.30 ( -12.45%)
Max-10 1-files/sec 11421.50 ( 0.00%) 9999.30 ( -12.45%)
Max-90 1-files/sec 4649.60 ( 0.00%) 4780.70 ( 2.82%)
Max-95 1-files/sec 4491.00 ( 0.00%) 4768.20 ( 6.17%)
Max-99 1-files/sec 4491.00 ( 0.00%) 4768.20 ( 6.17%)
Max 1-files/sec 11421.50 ( 0.00%) 9999.30 ( -12.45%)
Hmean 1-files/sec 5004.75 ( 0.00%) 5075.96 ( 1.42%)
Stddev 1-files/sec 1778.70 ( 0.00%) 1369.66 ( 23.00%)
CoeffVar 1-files/sec 33.70 ( 0.00%) 26.05 ( 22.71%)
BHmean-99 1-files/sec 5053.72 ( 0.00%) 5101.52 ( 0.95%)
BHmean-95 1-files/sec 5053.72 ( 0.00%) 5101.52 ( 0.95%)
BHmean-90 1-files/sec 5107.05 ( 0.00%) 5131.41 ( 0.48%)
BHmean-75 1-files/sec 5208.45 ( 0.00%) 5206.68 ( -0.03%)
BHmean-50 1-files/sec 5405.53 ( 0.00%) 5381.62 ( -0.44%)
BHmean-25 1-files/sec 6179.75 ( 0.00%) 6095.14 ( -1.37%)
5.3.0-rc3 5.3.0-rc3
vanillashrinker-v1r1
Duration User 501.82 497.29
Duration System 4401.44 4424.08
Duration Elapsed 8124.76 8358.05
This is showing a slight skew for the max result representing a large
outlier for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quartile are similar indicating that
the bulk of the results show little difference. Note that an earlier
version of the fsmark configuration showed a regression but that
included more samples taken while memory was still filling.
Note that the elapsed time is higher. Part of this is that the
configuration included time to delete all the test files when the test
completes -- the test automation handles the possibility of testing
fsmark with multiple thread counts. Without the patch, many of these
objects would be memory resident which is part of what the patch is
addressing.
There are other important observations that justify the patch.
1. With the vanilla kernel, the number of dirty pages in the system is
very low for much of the test. With this patch, dirty pages is
generally kept at 10% which matches vm.dirty_background_ratio which
is normal expected historical behaviour.
2. With the vanilla kernel, the ratio of Slab/Pagecache is close to
0.95 for much of the test i.e. Slab is being left alone and
dominating memory consumption. With the patch applied, the ratio
varies between 0.35 and 0.45 with the bulk of the measured ratios
roughly half way between those values. This is a different balance to
what Dave reported but it was at least consistent.
3. Slabs are scanned throughout the entire test with the patch applied.
The vanille kernel has periods with no scan activity and then
relatively massive spikes.
4. Without the patch, kswapd scan rates are very variable. With the
patch, the scan rates remain quite steady.
4. Overall vmstats are closer to normal expectations
5.3.0-rc3 5.3.0-rc3
vanilla shrinker-v1r1
Ops Direct pages scanned 99388.00 328410.00
Ops Kswapd pages scanned 45382917.00 33451026.00
Ops Kswapd pages reclaimed 30869570.00 25239655.00
Ops Direct pages reclaimed 74131.00 5830.00
Ops Kswapd efficiency % 68.02 75.45
Ops Kswapd velocity 5585.75 4002.25
Ops Page reclaim immediate 1179721.00 430927.00
Ops Slabs scanned 62367361.00 73581394.00
Ops Direct inode steals 2103.00 1002.00
Ops Kswapd inode steals 570180.00 5183206.00
o Vanilla kernel is hitting direct reclaim more frequently,
not very much in absolute terms but the fact the patch
reduces it is interesting
o "Page reclaim immediate" in the vanilla kernel indicates
dirty pages are being encountered at the tail of the LRU.
This is generally bad and means in this case that the LRU
is not long enough for dirty pages to be cleaned by the
background flush in time. This is much reduced by the
patch.
o With the patch, kswapd is reclaiming 10 times more slab
pages than with the vanilla kernel. This is indicative
of the watermark boosting over-protecting slab
A more complete set of tests were run that were part of the basis for
introducing boosting and while there are some differences, they are well
within tolerances.
Bottom line, the special casing kswapd to avoid slab behaviour is
unpredictable and can lead to abnormal results for normal workloads.
This patch restores the expected behaviour that slab and page cache is
balanced consistently for a workload with a steady allocation ratio of
slab/pagecache pages. It also means that if there are workloads that
favour the preservation of slab over pagecache that it can be tuned via
vm.vfs_cache_pressure where as the vanilla kernel effectively ignores
the parameter when boosting is active.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190808182946.GM2739@techsingularity.net
Fixes: 1c30844d2dfe ("mm: reclaim small amounts of memory when an external fragmentation event occurs")
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> [5.0+]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
shrinker
Shakeel Butt reported premature oom on kernel with
"cgroup_disable=memory" since mem_cgroup_is_root() returns false even
though memcg is actually NULL. The drop_caches is also broken.
It is because commit aeed1d325d42 ("mm/vmscan.c: generalize
shrink_slab() calls in shrink_node()") removed the !memcg check before
!mem_cgroup_is_root(). And, surprisingly root memcg is allocated even
though memory cgroup is disabled by kernel boot parameter.
Add mem_cgroup_disabled() check to make reclaimer work as expected.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1563385526-20805-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com
Fixes: aeed1d325d42 ("mm/vmscan.c: generalize shrink_slab() calls in shrink_node()")
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Reported-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Jan Hadrava <had@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> [4.19+]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Six sites are presently altering current->reclaim_state. There is a
risk that one function stomps on a caller's value. Use a helper
function to catch such errors.
Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
There are six different reclaim paths by now:
- kswapd reclaim path
- node reclaim path
- hibernate preallocate memory reclaim path
- direct reclaim path
- memcg reclaim path
- memcg softlimit reclaim path
The slab caches reclaimed in these paths are only calculated in the
above three paths.
There're some drawbacks if we don't calculate the reclaimed slab caches.
- The sc->nr_reclaimed isn't correct if there're some slab caches
relcaimed in this path.
- The slab caches may be reclaimed thoroughly if there're lots of
reclaimable slab caches and few page caches.
Let's take an easy example for this case. If one memcg is full of
slab caches and the limit of it is 512M, in other words there're
approximately 512M slab caches in this memcg. Then the limit of the
memcg is reached and the memcg reclaim begins, and then in this memcg
reclaim path it will continuesly reclaim the slab caches until the
sc->priority drops to 0. After this reclaim stops, you will find
there're few slab caches left, which is less than 20M in my test
case. While after this patch applied the number is greater than 300M
and the sc->priority only drops to 3.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1561112086-6169-3-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Patch series "mm/vmscan: calculate reclaimed slab in all reclaim paths".
This patchset is to fix the issues in doing shrink slab.
There're six different reclaim paths by now,
- kswapd reclaim path
- node reclaim path
- hibernate preallocate memory reclaim path
- direct reclaim path
- memcg reclaim path
- memcg softlimit reclaim path
The slab caches reclaimed in these paths are only calculated in the
above three paths. The issues are detailed explained in patch #2. We
should calculate the reclaimed slab caches in every reclaim path. In
order to do it, the struct reclaim_state is placed into the struct
shrink_control.
In node reclaim path, there'is another issue about shrinking slab, which
is adressed in "mm/vmscan: shrink slab in node reclaim"
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1559874946-22960-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com/).
This patch (of 2):
The struct reclaim_state is used to record how many slab caches are
reclaimed in one reclaim path. The struct shrink_control is used to
control one reclaim path. So we'd better put reclaim_state into
shrink_control.
[laoar.shao@gmail.com: remove reclaim_state assignment from __perform_reclaim()]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1561381582-13697-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1561112086-6169-2-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
Commit bd4c82c22c36 ("mm, THP, swap: delay splitting THP after swapped
out"), THP can be swapped out in a whole. But, nr_reclaimed and some
other vm counters still get inc'ed by one even though a whole THP (512
pages) gets swapped out.
This doesn't make too much sense to memory reclaim.
For example, direct reclaim may just need reclaim SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
pages, reclaiming one THP could fulfill it. But, if nr_reclaimed is not
increased correctly, direct reclaim may just waste time to reclaim more
pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 512 pages in worst case.
And, it may cause pgsteal_{kswapd|direct} is greater than
pgscan_{kswapd|direct}, like the below:
pgsteal_kswapd 122933
pgsteal_direct 26600225
pgscan_kswapd 174153
pgscan_direct 14678312
nr_reclaimed and nr_scanned must be fixed in parallel otherwise it would
break some page reclaim logic, e.g.
vmpressure: this looks at the scanned/reclaimed ratio so it won't change
semantics as long as scanned & reclaimed are fixed in parallel.
compaction/reclaim: compaction wants a certain number of physical pages
freed up before going back to compacting.
kswapd priority raising: kswapd raises priority if we scan fewer pages
than the reclaim target (which itself is obviously expressed in order-0
pages). As a result, kswapd can falsely raise its aggressiveness even
when it's making great progress.
Other than nr_scanned and nr_reclaimed, some other counters, e.g.
pgactivate, nr_skipped, nr_ref_keep and nr_unmap_fail need to be fixed too
since they are user visible via cgroup, /proc/vmstat or trace points,
otherwise they would be underreported.
When isolating pages from LRUs, nr_taken has been accounted in base page,
but nr_scanned and nr_skipped are still accounted in THP. It doesn't make
too much sense too since this may cause trace point underreport the
numbers as well.
So accounting those counters in base page instead of accounting THP as one
page.
nr_dirty, nr_unqueued_dirty, nr_congested and nr_writeback are used by
file cache, so they are not impacted by THP swap.
This change may result in lower steal/scan ratio in some cases since THP
may get split during page reclaim, then a part of tail pages get reclaimed
instead of the whole 512 pages, but nr_scanned is accounted by 512,
particularly for direct reclaim. But, this should be not a significant
issue.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1559025859-72759-2-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com
Signe |
