From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> Subject: Re: [patch 09/12] mm: page_alloc: private memory reserves for OOM-killing allocations Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:49:40 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20150414164939.GJ17160@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1427264236-17249-10-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> [Sorry for the late reply] On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:13, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The OOM killer connects random tasks in the system with unknown > dependencies between them, and the OOM victim might well get blocked > behind the task that is trying to allocate. That means that while > allocations can issue OOM kills to improve the low memory situation, > which generally frees more than they are going to take out, they can > not rely on their *own* OOM kills to make forward progress for them. > > Secondly, we want to avoid a racing allocation swooping in to steal > the work of the OOM killing allocation, causing spurious allocation > failures. The one that put in the work must have priority - if its > efforts are enough to serve both allocations that's fine, otherwise > concurrent allocations should be forced to issue their own OOM kills. > > Keep some pages below the min watermark reserved for OOM-killing > allocations to protect them from blocking victims and concurrent > allocations not pulling their weight. Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I am just not sure I am happy about some details. [...] > @@ -3274,6 +3290,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) > show_node(zone); > printk("%s" > " free:%lukB" > + " oom:%lukB" > " min:%lukB" > " low:%lukB" > " high:%lukB" > @@ -3306,6 +3323,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) > "\n", > zone->name, > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES)), > + K(oom_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(min_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(low_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(high_wmark_pages(zone)), Do we really need to export the new watermark into the userspace? How would it help user/admin? OK, maybe show_free_areas could be helpful for oom reports but why to export it in /proc/zoneinfo which is done further down? > @@ -5747,17 +5765,18 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void) > > min_pages = zone->managed_pages / 1024; > min_pages = clamp(min_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, 128UL); > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = min_pages; > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = min_pages; > } else { > /* > * If it's a lowmem zone, reserve a number of pages > * proportionate to the zone's size. > */ > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = tmp; > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = tmp; > } > > - zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > - zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 3); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); This will basically elevate the min watermark, right? And that might lead to subtle performance differences even when OOM killer is not invoked because the direct reclaim will start sooner. Shouldn't we rather give WMARK_OOM half of WMARK_MIN instead? > > __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, > high_wmark_pages(zone) - low_wmark_pages(zone) - > diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c > index 1fd0886a389f..a62f16ef524c 100644 > --- a/mm/vmstat.c > +++ b/mm/vmstat.c > @@ -1188,6 +1188,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > seq_printf(m, "Node %d, zone %8s", pgdat->node_id, zone->name); > seq_printf(m, > "\n pages free %lu" > + "\n oom %lu" > "\n min %lu" > "\n low %lu" > "\n high %lu" > @@ -1196,6 +1197,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > "\n present %lu" > "\n managed %lu", > zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES), > + oom_wmark_pages(zone), > min_wmark_pages(zone), > low_wmark_pages(zone), > high_wmark_pages(zone), > -- > 2.3.3 > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Subject: Re: [patch 09/12] mm: page_alloc: private memory reserves for OOM-killing allocations Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:49:40 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20150414164939.GJ17160@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1427264236-17249-10-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> [Sorry for the late reply] On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:13, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The OOM killer connects random tasks in the system with unknown > dependencies between them, and the OOM victim might well get blocked > behind the task that is trying to allocate. That means that while > allocations can issue OOM kills to improve the low memory situation, > which generally frees more than they are going to take out, they can > not rely on their *own* OOM kills to make forward progress for them. > > Secondly, we want to avoid a racing allocation swooping in to steal > the work of the OOM killing allocation, causing spurious allocation > failures. The one that put in the work must have priority - if its > efforts are enough to serve both allocations that's fine, otherwise > concurrent allocations should be forced to issue their own OOM kills. > > Keep some pages below the min watermark reserved for OOM-killing > allocations to protect them from blocking victims and concurrent > allocations not pulling their weight. Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I am just not sure I am happy about some details. [...] > @@ -3274,6 +3290,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) > show_node(zone); > printk("%s" > " free:%lukB" > + " oom:%lukB" > " min:%lukB" > " low:%lukB" > " high:%lukB" > @@ -3306,6 +3323,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) > "\n", > zone->name, > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES)), > + K(oom_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(min_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(low_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(high_wmark_pages(zone)), Do we really need to export the new watermark into the userspace? How would it help user/admin? OK, maybe show_free_areas could be helpful for oom reports but why to export it in /proc/zoneinfo which is done further down? > @@ -5747,17 +5765,18 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void) > > min_pages = zone->managed_pages / 1024; > min_pages = clamp(min_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, 128UL); > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = min_pages; > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = min_pages; > } else { > /* > * If it's a lowmem zone, reserve a number of pages > * proportionate to the zone's size. > */ > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = tmp; > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = tmp; > } > > - zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > - zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 3); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); This will basically elevate the min watermark, right? And that might lead to subtle performance differences even when OOM killer is not invoked because the direct reclaim will start sooner. Shouldn't we rather give WMARK_OOM half of WMARK_MIN instead? > > __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, > high_wmark_pages(zone) - low_wmark_pages(zone) - > diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c > index 1fd0886a389f..a62f16ef524c 100644 > --- a/mm/vmstat.c > +++ b/mm/vmstat.c > @@ -1188,6 +1188,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > seq_printf(m, "Node %d, zone %8s", pgdat->node_id, zone->name); > seq_printf(m, > "\n pages free %lu" > + "\n oom %lu" > "\n min %lu" > "\n low %lu" > "\n high %lu" > @@ -1196,6 +1197,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > "\n present %lu" > "\n managed %lu", > zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES), > + oom_wmark_pages(zone), > min_wmark_pages(zone), > low_wmark_pages(zone), > high_wmark_pages(zone), > -- > 2.3.3 > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-14 16:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 138+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-03-25 6:17 [patch 00/12] mm: page_alloc: improve OOM mechanism and policy Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 01/12] mm: oom_kill: remove unnecessary locking in oom_enable() Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 0:51 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 0:51 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 11:51 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 11:51 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 13:18 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 13:18 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 19:30 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 19:30 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 11:43 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 11:43 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 20:05 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 20:05 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 02/12] mm: oom_kill: clean up victim marking and exiting interfaces Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 3:34 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 3:34 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 11:54 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 11:54 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 03/12] mm: oom_kill: switch test-and-clear of known TIF_MEMDIE to clear Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 3:31 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 3:31 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 11:05 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 11:05 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 19:50 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 19:50 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-30 14:48 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-30 14:48 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-02 23:01 ` [patch] android, lmk: avoid setting TIF_MEMDIE if process has already exited David Rientjes 2015-04-02 23:01 ` David Rientjes 2015-04-28 22:50 ` [patch resend] " David Rientjes 2015-04-28 22:50 ` David Rientjes 2015-03-26 11:57 ` [patch 03/12] mm: oom_kill: switch test-and-clear of known TIF_MEMDIE to clear Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 11:57 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 04/12] mm: oom_kill: remove unnecessary locking in exit_oom_victim() Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 12:53 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 12:53 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 13:01 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 13:01 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 15:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:04 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:04 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 05/12] mm: oom_kill: generalize OOM progress waitqueue Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 13:03 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 13:03 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 06/12] mm: oom_kill: simplify OOM killer locking Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 13:31 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 13:31 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 15:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 16:07 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 16:07 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 07/12] mm: page_alloc: inline should_alloc_retry() Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 14:11 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 14:11 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 15:18 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:18 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 08/12] mm: page_alloc: wait for OOM killer progress before retrying Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 14:15 ` Tetsuo Handa 2015-03-25 14:15 ` Tetsuo Handa 2015-03-25 17:01 ` Vlastimil Babka 2015-03-25 17:01 ` Vlastimil Babka 2015-03-26 11:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 11:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 11:24 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 11:24 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 15:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:38 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 15:38 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 18:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 18:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-27 14:01 ` [patch 08/12] mm: page_alloc: wait for OOM killer progressbefore retrying Tetsuo Handa 2015-03-27 14:01 ` Tetsuo Handa 2015-03-26 15:58 ` [patch 08/12] mm: page_alloc: wait for OOM killer progress before retrying Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 15:58 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 18:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 18:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 09/12] mm: page_alloc: private memory reserves for OOM-killing allocations Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-14 16:49 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2015-04-14 16:49 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-24 19:13 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-24 19:13 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 10/12] mm: page_alloc: emergency reserve access for __GFP_NOFAIL allocations Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-14 16:55 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-14 16:55 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 11/12] mm: page_alloc: do not lock up GFP_NOFS allocations upon OOM Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 14:50 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 14:50 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-25 6:17 ` [patch 12/12] mm: page_alloc: do not lock up low-order " Johannes Weiner 2015-03-25 6:17 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-26 15:32 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 15:32 ` Michal Hocko 2015-03-26 19:58 ` [patch 00/12] mm: page_alloc: improve OOM mechanism and policy Dave Chinner 2015-03-26 19:58 ` Dave Chinner 2015-03-27 15:05 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-27 15:05 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-30 0:32 ` Dave Chinner 2015-03-30 0:32 ` Dave Chinner 2015-03-30 19:31 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-03-30 19:31 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-01 15:19 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-01 15:19 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-01 21:39 ` Dave Chinner 2015-04-01 21:39 ` Dave Chinner 2015-04-02 7:29 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-02 7:29 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-07 14:18 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-07 14:18 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-11 7:29 ` Tetsuo Handa 2015-04-11 7:29 ` Tetsuo Handa 2015-04-13 12:49 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-13 12:49 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-13 12:46 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-13 12:46 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-14 0:11 ` Dave Chinner 2015-04-14 0:11 ` Dave Chinner 2015-04-14 7:20 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-14 7:20 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-14 10:36 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-14 10:36 ` Johannes Weiner 2015-04-14 14:23 ` Michal Hocko 2015-04-14 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
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=20150414164939.GJ17160@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@suse.cz \ --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=tytso@mit.edu \ --cc=ying.huang@intel.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: linkBe 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.