All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Alexey Lyahkov <alexey.lyashkov@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Perepechko <anserper@ya.ru>,
	Robin Dong <sanbai@taobao.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
	Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: Activate !PageLRU pages on mark_page_accessed if page is on local pagevec
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:55:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130515155500.ffe53764d9018c80572544cc@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1368440482-27909-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>

On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:21:21 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> If a page is on a pagevec then it is !PageLRU and mark_page_accessed()
> may fail to move a page to the active list as expected. Now that the LRU
> is selected at LRU drain time, mark pages PageActive if they are on the
> local pagevec so it gets moved to the correct list at LRU drain time.
> Using a debugging patch it was found that for a simple git checkout based
> workload that pages were never added to the active file list in practice
> but with this patch applied they are.
> 
> 				before   after
> LRU Add Active File                  0      750583
> LRU Add Active Anon            2640587     2702818
> LRU Add Inactive File          8833662     8068353
> LRU Add Inactive Anon              207         200
> 
> Note that only pages on the local pagevec are considered on purpose. A
> !PageLRU page could be in the process of being released, reclaimed, migrated
> or on a remote pagevec that is currently being drained. Marking it PageActive
> is vunerable to races where PageLRU and Active bits are checked at the
> wrong time. Page reclaim will trigger VM_BUG_ONs but depending on when the
> race hits, it could also free a PageActive page to the page allocator and
> trigger a bad_page warning. Similarly a potential race exists between a
> per-cpu drain on a pagevec list and an activation on a remote CPU.
> 
> 				lru_add_drain_cpu
> 				__pagevec_lru_add
> 				  lru = page_lru(page);
> mark_page_accessed
>   if (PageLRU(page))
>     activate_page
>   else
>     SetPageActive
> 				  SetPageLRU(page);
> 				  add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
> 
> In this case a PageActive page is added to the inactivate list and later the
> inactive/active stats will get skewed. While the PageActive checks in vmscan
> could be removed and potentially dealt with, a skew in the statistics would
> be very difficult to detect. Hence this patch deals just with the common case
> where a page being marked accessed has just been added to the local pagevec.

but but but

> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -431,6 +431,27 @@ void activate_page(struct page *page)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +static void __lru_cache_activate_page(struct page *page)
> +{
> +	struct pagevec *pvec = &get_cpu_var(lru_add_pvec);
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Search backwards on the optimistic assumption that the page being
> +	 * activated has just been added to this pagevec
> +	 */
> +	for (i = pagevec_count(pvec) - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		struct page *pagevec_page = pvec->pages[i];
> +
> +		if (pagevec_page == page) {
> +			SetPageActive(page);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	put_cpu_var(lru_add_pvec);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Mark a page as having seen activity.
>   *
> @@ -441,8 +462,17 @@ void activate_page(struct page *page)
>  void mark_page_accessed(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	if (!PageActive(page) && !PageUnevictable(page) &&
> -			PageReferenced(page) && PageLRU(page)) {
> -		activate_page(page);
> +			PageReferenced(page)) {
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * If the page is on the LRU, promote immediately. Otherwise,
> +		 * assume the page is on a pagevec, mark it active and it'll
> +		 * be moved to the active LRU on the next drain
> +		 */
> +		if (PageLRU(page))
> +			activate_page(page);
> +		else
> +			__lru_cache_activate_page(page);
>  		ClearPageReferenced(page);
>  	} else if (!PageReferenced(page)) {
>  		SetPageReferenced(page);

For starters, activate_page() doesn't "promote immediately".  It sticks
the page into yet another pagevec for deferred activation.

Also, I really worry about the fact that
activate_page()->drain->__activate_page() will simply skip over the
page if it has PageActive set!  So PageActive does something useful if
the page is in the add-to-lru pagevec but nothing useful if the page is
in the activate-it-soon pagevec.  This is a confusing, unobvious bug
attractant.

Secondly, I really don't see how this code avoids the races.  Suppose
the page gets spilled from the to-add-to-lru pagevec and onto the real
LRU while mark_page_accessed() is concurrently executing.  We end up
setting PageActive on a page which is on the inactive LRU?  Maybe this
is a can't-happen, in which case it's nowhere near clear enough *why*
this can't happen.





WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Alexey Lyahkov <alexey.lyashkov@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Perepechko <anserper@ya.ru>,
	Robin Dong <sanbai@taobao.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
	Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: Activate !PageLRU pages on mark_page_accessed if page is on local pagevec
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:55:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130515155500.ffe53764d9018c80572544cc@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1368440482-27909-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>

On Mon, 13 May 2013 11:21:21 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> If a page is on a pagevec then it is !PageLRU and mark_page_accessed()
> may fail to move a page to the active list as expected. Now that the LRU
> is selected at LRU drain time, mark pages PageActive if they are on the
> local pagevec so it gets moved to the correct list at LRU drain time.
> Using a debugging patch it was found that for a simple git checkout based
> workload that pages were never added to the active file list in practice
> but with this patch applied they are.
> 
> 				before   after
> LRU Add Active File                  0      750583
> LRU Add Active Anon            2640587     2702818
> LRU Add Inactive File          8833662     8068353
> LRU Add Inactive Anon              207         200
> 
> Note that only pages on the local pagevec are considered on purpose. A
> !PageLRU page could be in the process of being released, reclaimed, migrated
> or on a remote pagevec that is currently being drained. Marking it PageActive
> is vunerable to races where PageLRU and Active bits are checked at the
> wrong time. Page reclaim will trigger VM_BUG_ONs but depending on when the
> race hits, it could also free a PageActive page to the page allocator and
> trigger a bad_page warning. Similarly a potential race exists between a
> per-cpu drain on a pagevec list and an activation on a remote CPU.
> 
> 				lru_add_drain_cpu
> 				__pagevec_lru_add
> 				  lru = page_lru(page);
> mark_page_accessed
>   if (PageLRU(page))
>     activate_page
>   else
>     SetPageActive
> 				  SetPageLRU(page);
> 				  add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
> 
> In this case a PageActive page is added to the inactivate list and later the
> inactive/active stats will get skewed. While the PageActive checks in vmscan
> could be removed and potentially dealt with, a skew in the statistics would
> be very difficult to detect. Hence this patch deals just with the common case
> where a page being marked accessed has just been added to the local pagevec.

but but but

> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -431,6 +431,27 @@ void activate_page(struct page *page)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +static void __lru_cache_activate_page(struct page *page)
> +{
> +	struct pagevec *pvec = &get_cpu_var(lru_add_pvec);
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Search backwards on the optimistic assumption that the page being
> +	 * activated has just been added to this pagevec
> +	 */
> +	for (i = pagevec_count(pvec) - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +		struct page *pagevec_page = pvec->pages[i];
> +
> +		if (pagevec_page == page) {
> +			SetPageActive(page);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	put_cpu_var(lru_add_pvec);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Mark a page as having seen activity.
>   *
> @@ -441,8 +462,17 @@ void activate_page(struct page *page)
>  void mark_page_accessed(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	if (!PageActive(page) && !PageUnevictable(page) &&
> -			PageReferenced(page) && PageLRU(page)) {
> -		activate_page(page);
> +			PageReferenced(page)) {
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * If the page is on the LRU, promote immediately. Otherwise,
> +		 * assume the page is on a pagevec, mark it active and it'll
> +		 * be moved to the active LRU on the next drain
> +		 */
> +		if (PageLRU(page))
> +			activate_page(page);
> +		else
> +			__lru_cache_activate_page(page);
>  		ClearPageReferenced(page);
>  	} else if (!PageReferenced(page)) {
>  		SetPageReferenced(page);

For starters, activate_page() doesn't "promote immediately".  It sticks
the page into yet another pagevec for deferred activation.

Also, I really worry about the fact that
activate_page()->drain->__activate_page() will simply skip over the
page if it has PageActive set!  So PageActive does something useful if
the page is in the add-to-lru pagevec but nothing useful if the page is
in the activate-it-soon pagevec.  This is a confusing, unobvious bug
attractant.

Secondly, I really don't see how this code avoids the races.  Suppose
the page gets spilled from the to-add-to-lru pagevec and onto the real
LRU while mark_page_accessed() is concurrently executing.  We end up
setting PageActive on a page which is on the inactive LRU?  Maybe this
is a can't-happen, in which case it's nowhere near clear enough *why*
this can't happen.




--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-05-15 22:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-13 10:21 [PATCH 0/4] Obey mark_page_accessed hint given by filesystems v2 Mel Gorman
2013-05-13 10:21 ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm: Add tracepoints for LRU activation and insertions Mel Gorman
2013-05-13 10:21   ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-15 17:39   ` Rik van Riel
2013-05-15 17:39     ` Rik van Riel
2013-05-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm: pagevec: Defer deciding what LRU to add a page to until pagevec drain time Mel Gorman
2013-05-13 10:21   ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-15 22:53   ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-15 22:53     ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-16 14:29     ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-16 14:29       ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm: Activate !PageLRU pages on mark_page_accessed if page is on local pagevec Mel Gorman
2013-05-13 10:21   ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-15 17:40   ` Rik van Riel
2013-05-15 17:40     ` Rik van Riel
2013-05-15 22:55   ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2013-05-15 22:55     ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-16 13:41     ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-16 13:41       ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-20 22:09       ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-20 22:09         ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: Remove lru parameter from __pagevec_lru_add and remove parts of pagevec API Mel Gorman
2013-05-13 10:21   ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-15 17:46   ` Rik van Riel
2013-05-15 17:46     ` Rik van Riel
2013-05-15 22:56   ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-15 22:56     ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-16 14:19     ` Mel Gorman
2013-05-16 14:19       ` Mel Gorman

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=20130515155500.ffe53764d9018c80572544cc@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=alexey.lyashkov@gmail.com \
    --cc=anserper@ya.ru \
    --cc=bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=sanbai@taobao.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.