From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:20:26 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161229012026.GB15541@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161227155532.GI1308@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 04:55:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> could you try to run with the following patch on top of the previous
> one? I do not think it will make a large change in your workload but
> I think we need something like that so some testing under which is known
> to make a high lowmem pressure would be really appreciated. If you have
> more time to play with it then running with and without the patch with
> mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_{start,end} tracepoints enabled could tell us
> whether it make any difference at all.
>
> I would also appreciate if Mel and Johannes had a look at it. I am not
> yet sure whether we need the same thing for anon/file balancing in
> get_scan_count. I suspect we need but need to think more about that.
>
> Thanks a lot again!
> ---
> From b51f50340fe9e40b68be198b012f8ab9869c1850 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:28:44 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count
>
> get_scan_count considers the whole node LRU size when
> - doing SCAN_FILE due to many page cache inactive pages
> - calculating the number of pages to scan
>
> in both cases this might lead to unexpected behavior especially on 32b
> systems where we can expect lowmem memory pressure very often.
>
> A large highmem zone can easily distort SCAN_FILE heuristic because
> there might be only few file pages from the eligible zones on the node
> lru and we would still enforce file lru scanning which can lead to
> trashing while we could still scan anonymous pages.
Nit:
It doesn't make thrashing because isolate_lru_pages filter out them
but I agree it makes pointless CPU burning to find eligible pages.
>
> The later use of lruvec_lru_size can be problematic as well. Especially
> when there are not many pages from the eligible zones. We would have to
> skip over many pages to find anything to reclaim but shrink_node_memcg
> would only reduce the remaining number to scan by SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
> at maximum. Therefore we can end up going over a large LRU many times
> without actually having chance to reclaim much if anything at all. The
> closer we are out of memory on lowmem zone the worse the problem will
> be.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index c98b1a585992..785b4d7fb8a0 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -252,6 +252,32 @@ unsigned long lruvec_zone_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int
> }
>
> /*
> + * Return the number of pages on the given lru which are eligibne for the
eligible
> + * given zone_idx
> + */
> +static unsigned long lruvec_lru_size_zone_idx(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> + enum lru_list lru, int zone_idx)
Nit:
Although there is a comment, function name is rather confusing when I compared
it with lruvec_zone_lru_size.
lruvec_eligible_zones_lru_size is better?
> +{
> + struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
> + unsigned long lru_size;
> + int zid;
> +
> + lru_size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
> + for (zid = zone_idx + 1; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
> + struct zone *zone = &pgdat->node_zones[zid];
> + unsigned long size;
> +
> + if (!managed_zone(zone))
> + continue;
> +
> + size = lruvec_zone_lru_size(lruvec, lru, zid);
> + lru_size -= min(size, lru_size);
> + }
> +
> + return lru_size;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * Add a shrinker callback to be called from the vm.
> */
> int register_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> @@ -2207,7 +2233,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> * system is under heavy pressure.
> */
> if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, true, sc) &&
> - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE) >> sc->priority) {
> + lruvec_lru_size_zone_idx(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, sc->reclaim_idx) >> sc->priority) {
> scan_balance = SCAN_FILE;
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -2274,7 +2300,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> unsigned long size;
> unsigned long scan;
>
> - size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
> + size = lruvec_lru_size_zone_idx(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
> scan = size >> sc->priority;
>
> if (!scan && pass && force_scan)
> --
> 2.10.2
Nit:
With this patch, inactive_list_is_low can use lruvec_lru_size_zone_idx rather than
own custom calculation to filter out non-eligible pages.
Anyway, I think this patch does right things so I suppose this.
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-29 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-15 22:57 OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Nils Holland
2016-12-16 7:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-12-16 22:12 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 11:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-18 16:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 18:47 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland
2016-12-17 0:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 12:59 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 14:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-17 17:11 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 21:06 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-18 5:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-19 13:45 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-20 2:08 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-21 7:36 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 11:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-21 11:16 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 14:04 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-22 10:10 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-22 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-22 10:35 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-22 10:46 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-22 19:17 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-22 21:46 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-23 10:51 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 12:18 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-23 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 14:47 ` [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 22:26 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-26 12:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 18:57 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-27 8:08 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 11:23 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-27 11:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 15:55 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 16:28 ` [PATCH] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count kbuild test robot
2016-12-28 8:51 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 19:33 ` [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Nils Holland
2016-12-28 8:57 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-29 1:20 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2016-12-29 9:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 2:05 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-30 10:40 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-29 0:31 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 0:48 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 8:52 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 10:19 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-30 11:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 12:43 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-25 22:25 ` [lkp-developer] [mm, memcg] d18e2b2aca: WARNING:at_mm/memcontrol.c:#mem_cgroup_update_lru_size kernel test robot
2016-12-26 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-18 0:28 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Xin Zhou
2016-12-16 18:15 ` OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Chris Mason
2016-12-16 22:14 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 22:47 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-16 23:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 19:50 ` Chris Mason
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161229012026.GB15541@bbox \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=nholland@tisys.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).