From: Johannes Buchner <buchner.johannes@gmx.at>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Let's talk about the elephant in the room - the Linux kernel's inability to gracefully handle low memory pressure
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:57:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5a42d32d-df03-85ae-d487-3faaa9f1fd9a@gmx.at> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4266 bytes --]
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:31 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> > On 8/4/19 11:23 AM, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > There's this bug which has been bugging many people for many years
>> > > already and which is reproducible in less than a few minutes under the
>> > > latest and greatest kernel, 5.2.6. All the kernel parameters are set to
>> > > defaults.
>> > >
>> > > Steps to reproduce:
>> > >
>> > > 1) Boot with mem=4G
>> > > 2) Disable swap to make everything faster (sudo swapoff -a)
>> > > 3) Launch a web browser, e.g. Chrome/Chromium or/and Firefox
>> > > 4) Start opening tabs in either of them and watch your free RAM decrease
>> > >
>> > > Once you hit a situation when opening a new tab requires more RAM than
>> > > is currently available, the system will stall hard. You will barely be
>> > > able to move the mouse pointer. Your disk LED will be flashing
>> > > incessantly (I'm not entirely sure why). You will not be able to run new
>> > > applications or close currently running ones.
>> >
>> > > This little crisis may continue for minutes or even longer. I think
>> > > that's not how the system should behave in this situation. I believe
>> > > something must be done about that to avoid this stall.
>> >
>> > Yeah that's a known problem, made worse SSD's in fact, as they are able
>> > to keep refaulting the last remaining file pages fast enough, so there
>> > is still apparent progress in reclaim and OOM doesn't kick in.
>> >
>> > At this point, the likely solution will be probably based on pressure
>> > stall monitoring (PSI). I don't know how far we are from a built-in
>> > monitor with reasonable defaults for a desktop workload, so CCing
>> > relevant folks.
>>
>> Yes, psi was specifically developed to address this problem. Before
>> it, the kernel had to make all decisions based on relative event rates
>> but had no notion of time. Whereas to the user, time is clearly an
>> issue, and in fact makes all the difference. So psi quantifies the
>> time the workload spends executing vs. spinning its wheels.
>>
>> But choosing a universal cutoff for killing is not possible, since it
>> depends on the workload and the user's expectation: GUI and other
>> latency-sensitive applications care way before a compile job or video
>> encoding would care.
>>
>> Because of that, there are things like oomd and lmkd as mentioned, to
>> leave the exact policy decision to userspace.
>>
>> That being said, I think we should be able to provide a bare minimum
>> inside the kernel to avoid complete livelocks where the user does not
>> believe the machine would be able to recover without a reboot.
>>
>> The goal wouldn't be a glitch-free user experience - the kernel does
>> not know enough about the applications to even attempt that. It should
>> just not hang indefinitely. Maybe similar to the hung task detector.
>>
>> How about something like the below patch? With that, the kernel
>> catches excessive thrashing that happens before reclaim fails:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> +
>> +#define OOM_PRESSURE_LEVEL 80
>> +#define OOM_PRESSURE_PERIOD (10 * NSEC_PER_SEC)
>
> 80% of the last 10 seconds spent in full stall would definitely be a
> problem. If the system was already low on memory (which it probably
> is, or we would not be reclaiming so hard and registering such a big
> stall) then oom-killer would probably kill something before 8 seconds
> are passed. If my line of thinking is correct, then do we really
> benefit from such additional protection mechanism? I might be wrong
> here because my experience is limited to embedded systems with
> relatively small amounts of memory.
When one or more processes fight for memory, much of the time spent
stalling. Would an acceptable alternative strategy be, instead of
killing a process, to hold processes proportional to their stall time
and memory usage? By stop I mean delay their scheduling (akin to kill
-STOP/sleep/kill -CONT), or interleave the scheduling of
large-memory-using processes so they do not have to fight against each
other.
Cheers,
Johannes
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2019-08-06 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-06 8:57 Johannes Buchner [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-08-06 19:43 Let's talk about the elephant in the room - the Linux kernel's inability to gracefully handle low memory pressure Remi Gauvin
[not found] <20190805090514.5992-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2019-08-05 12:01 ` Artem S. Tashkinov
2019-08-04 9:23 Artem S. Tashkinov
2019-08-05 12:13 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-05 13:31 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-05 16:47 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-08-05 18:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-06 9:29 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-05 19:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-06 1:08 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-08-06 9:36 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-06 14:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-06 14:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 16:27 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-08-06 22:01 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-07 7:59 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-07 20:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-07 21:01 ` Andrew Morton
2019-08-07 21:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-07 21:12 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-08 11:48 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-08 15:10 ` ndrw.xf
2019-08-08 16:32 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-08 17:57 ` ndrw.xf
2019-08-08 18:59 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-08 21:59 ` ndrw
2019-08-09 8:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-09 10:09 ` ndrw
2019-08-09 10:50 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-09 14:18 ` Pintu Agarwal
2019-08-10 12:34 ` ndrw
2019-08-12 8:24 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-10 21:07 ` ndrw
2021-07-24 17:32 ` Alexey Avramov
2019-08-08 14:47 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-08 17:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-09 14:56 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-09 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-13 13:47 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-06 21:43 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2019-08-06 19:00 ` Florian Weimer
2019-08-20 6:46 ` Daniel Drake
2019-08-21 21:42 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2019-08-29 12:29 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-02 20:15 ` Pavel Machek
2019-08-23 1:54 ` ndrw
2019-08-23 2:14 ` Daniel Drake
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=5a42d32d-df03-85ae-d487-3faaa9f1fd9a@gmx.at \
--to=buchner.johannes@gmx.at \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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).