* [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 8:47 ` Xishi Qiu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-26 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka
Cc: LKML, Linux MM, Yisheng Xie
commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
(mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
__zone_watermark_ok()
...
for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
/* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
/* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
min >>= 1;
if (free_pages <= min)
return false;
}
...
If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
Also if we doing __alloc_pages_slowpath(), the compact will not work, because
__zone_watermark_ok() always return true, and it lead to alloc a high-order
unmovable page failed, then do direct reclaim.
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 8:47 ` Xishi Qiu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-26 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka
Cc: LKML, Linux MM, Yisheng Xie
commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
(mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
__zone_watermark_ok()
...
for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
/* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
/* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
min >>= 1;
if (free_pages <= min)
return false;
}
...
If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
Also if we doing __alloc_pages_slowpath(), the compact will not work, because
__zone_watermark_ok() always return true, and it lead to alloc a high-order
unmovable page failed, then do direct reclaim.
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-26 8:47 ` Xishi Qiu
@ 2016-09-26 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2016-09-26 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu, Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Johannes Weiner
Cc: LKML, Linux MM, Yisheng Xie, Joonsoo Kim
[+CC Joonsoo Kim]
On 09/26/2016 10:47 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>
> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> __zone_watermark_ok()
> ...
> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>
> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> min >>= 1;
>
> if (free_pages <= min)
> return false;
> }
> ...
>
> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>
> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
Yeah I think this limitation was known to CMA people.
> Also if we doing __alloc_pages_slowpath(), the compact will not work, because
> __zone_watermark_ok() always return true, and it lead to alloc a high-order
> unmovable page failed, then do direct reclaim.
I guess that can happen as well.
> Thanks,
> Xishi Qiu
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2016-09-26 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu, Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Johannes Weiner
Cc: LKML, Linux MM, Yisheng Xie, Joonsoo Kim
[+CC Joonsoo Kim]
On 09/26/2016 10:47 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>
> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> __zone_watermark_ok()
> ...
> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>
> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> min >>= 1;
>
> if (free_pages <= min)
> return false;
> }
> ...
>
> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>
> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
Yeah I think this limitation was known to CMA people.
> Also if we doing __alloc_pages_slowpath(), the compact will not work, because
> __zone_watermark_ok() always return true, and it lead to alloc a high-order
> unmovable page failed, then do direct reclaim.
I guess that can happen as well.
> Thanks,
> Xishi Qiu
>
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-26 8:47 ` Xishi Qiu
@ 2016-09-26 8:58 ` Michal Hocko
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2016-09-26 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>
> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> __zone_watermark_ok()
> ...
> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>
> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> min >>= 1;
>
> if (free_pages <= min)
> return false;
> }
> ...
>
> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>
> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
/* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
#endif
if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
return false;
should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
below the wmark + reserve boundary.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 8:58 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2016-09-26 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>
> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> __zone_watermark_ok()
> ...
> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>
> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> min >>= 1;
>
> if (free_pages <= min)
> return false;
> }
> ...
>
> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>
> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
/* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
#endif
if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
return false;
should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
below the wmark + reserve boundary.
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-26 8:58 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2016-09-26 9:16 ` Xishi Qiu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-26 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>>
>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
>> __zone_watermark_ok()
>> ...
>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>>
>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
>> min >>= 1;
>>
>> if (free_pages <= min)
>> return false;
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>>
>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
>
> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> #endif
>
> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> return false;
>
> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
Hi Michal,
If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
will alloc *failed*, right?
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 9:16 ` Xishi Qiu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-26 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>>
>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
>> __zone_watermark_ok()
>> ...
>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>>
>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
>> min >>= 1;
>>
>> if (free_pages <= min)
>> return false;
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>>
>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
>
> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> #endif
>
> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> return false;
>
> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
Hi Michal,
If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
will alloc *failed*, right?
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-26 9:16 ` Xishi Qiu
@ 2016-09-26 9:43 ` Michal Hocko
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2016-09-26 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> >> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> >> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> >> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
> >>
> >> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> >> __zone_watermark_ok()
> >> ...
> >> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> >> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> >> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
> >>
> >> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> >> min >>= 1;
> >>
> >> if (free_pages <= min)
> >> return false;
> >> }
> >> ...
> >>
> >> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
> >>
> >> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> >> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> >> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> >> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
> >
> > AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> > the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> > if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> > free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> > #endif
> >
> > if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> > return false;
> >
> > should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> > below the wmark + reserve boundary.
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
> will alloc *failed*, right?
As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
and high order requests.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 9:43 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2016-09-26 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> >> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> >> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> >> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
> >>
> >> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> >> __zone_watermark_ok()
> >> ...
> >> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> >> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> >> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
> >>
> >> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> >> min >>= 1;
> >>
> >> if (free_pages <= min)
> >> return false;
> >> }
> >> ...
> >>
> >> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
> >>
> >> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> >> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> >> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> >> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
> >
> > AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> > the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> > if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> > free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> > #endif
> >
> > if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> > return false;
> >
> > should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> > below the wmark + reserve boundary.
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
> will alloc *failed*, right?
As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
and high order requests.
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-26 9:43 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2016-09-26 10:17 ` Xishi Qiu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-26 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
>>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
>>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
>>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>>>>
>>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
>>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
>>>> ...
>>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
>>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
>>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>>>>
>>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
>>>> min >>= 1;
>>>>
>>>> if (free_pages <= min)
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>>>>
>>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
>>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
>>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
>>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
>>>
>>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
>>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
>>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
>>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
>>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
>>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
>>
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
>> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
>> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
>> will alloc *failed*, right?
>
> As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
> and high order requests.
Shall we backport to stable?
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 10:17 ` Xishi Qiu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-26 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
>>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
>>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
>>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>>>>
>>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
>>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
>>>> ...
>>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
>>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
>>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>>>>
>>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
>>>> min >>= 1;
>>>>
>>>> if (free_pages <= min)
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>>>>
>>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
>>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
>>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
>>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
>>>
>>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
>>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
>>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
>>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
>>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
>>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
>>
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
>> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
>> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
>> will alloc *failed*, right?
>
> As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
> and high order requests.
Shall we backport to stable?
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-26 10:17 ` Xishi Qiu
@ 2016-09-26 11:02 ` Michal Hocko
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2016-09-26 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On Mon 26-09-16 18:17:50, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> >>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> >>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> >>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> >>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
> >>>> ...
> >>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> >>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> >>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
> >>>>
> >>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> >>>> min >>= 1;
> >>>>
> >>>> if (free_pages <= min)
> >>>> return false;
> >>>> }
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
> >>>>
> >>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> >>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> >>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> >>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
> >>>
> >>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> >>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
> >>>
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> >>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> >>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> >>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> >>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
> >>
> >> Hi Michal,
> >>
> >> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
> >> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
> >> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
> >> will alloc *failed*, right?
> >
> > As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
> > and high order requests.
>
> Shall we backport to stable?
I dunno, it was a part of a larger series with high atomic reserves and
changes which sound a bit intrusive for the stable kernel. Considering
that CMA was known to be problematic and there are still some issues
left I do not think this is worth the trouble/risk.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-26 11:02 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2016-09-26 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xishi Qiu
Cc: Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML, Linux MM,
Yisheng Xie
On Mon 26-09-16 18:17:50, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> >>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> >>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> >>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> >>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
> >>>> ...
> >>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> >>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> >>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
> >>>>
> >>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> >>>> min >>= 1;
> >>>>
> >>>> if (free_pages <= min)
> >>>> return false;
> >>>> }
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
> >>>>
> >>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> >>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> >>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> >>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
> >>>
> >>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> >>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
> >>>
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> >>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> >>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> >>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> >>> return false;
> >>>
> >>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> >>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
> >>
> >> Hi Michal,
> >>
> >> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
> >> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
> >> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
> >> will alloc *failed*, right?
> >
> > As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
> > and high order requests.
>
> Shall we backport to stable?
I dunno, it was a part of a larger series with high atomic reserves and
changes which sound a bit intrusive for the stable kernel. Considering
that CMA was known to be problematic and there are still some issues
left I do not think this is worth the trouble/risk.
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-26 11:02 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2016-09-28 5:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Joonsoo Kim @ 2016-09-28 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: Xishi Qiu, Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML,
Linux MM, Yisheng Xie
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:02:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-16 18:17:50, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > >> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > >>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> > >>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> > >>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> > >>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> > >>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> > >>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> > >>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> > >>>> min >>= 1;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> if (free_pages <= min)
> > >>>> return false;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> > >>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> > >>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> > >>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
> > >>>
> > >>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> > >>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
> > >>>
> > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > >>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> > >>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> > >>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> > >>> #endif
> > >>>
> > >>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> > >>> return false;
> > >>>
> > >>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> > >>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
> > >>
> > >> Hi Michal,
> > >>
> > >> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
> > >> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
> > >> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
> > >> will alloc *failed*, right?
> > >
> > > As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
> > > and high order requests.
> >
> > Shall we backport to stable?
>
> I dunno, it was a part of a larger series with high atomic reserves and
> changes which sound a bit intrusive for the stable kernel. Considering
> that CMA was known to be problematic and there are still some issues
> left I do not think this is worth the trouble/risk.
CMA problem is known one. I mentioned it on my ZONE_CMA series v1 but
removed due to Mel's high atomic reserve series.
That series is rather large and has some problems so I think that it
is not suitable for stable tree.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-28 5:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Joonsoo Kim @ 2016-09-28 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko
Cc: Xishi Qiu, Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML,
Linux MM, Yisheng Xie
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:02:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-16 18:17:50, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > >> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > >>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
> > >>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
> > >>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
> > >>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
> > >>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
> > >>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
> > >>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
> > >>>> min >>= 1;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> if (free_pages <= min)
> > >>>> return false;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
> > >>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
> > >>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
> > >>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
> > >>>
> > >>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
> > >>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
> > >>>
> > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > >>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
> > >>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
> > >>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
> > >>> #endif
> > >>>
> > >>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
> > >>> return false;
> > >>>
> > >>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
> > >>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
> > >>
> > >> Hi Michal,
> > >>
> > >> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
> > >> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
> > >> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
> > >> will alloc *failed*, right?
> > >
> > > As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
> > > and high order requests.
> >
> > Shall we backport to stable?
>
> I dunno, it was a part of a larger series with high atomic reserves and
> changes which sound a bit intrusive for the stable kernel. Considering
> that CMA was known to be problematic and there are still some issues
> left I do not think this is worth the trouble/risk.
CMA problem is known one. I mentioned it on my ZONE_CMA series v1 but
removed due to Mel's high atomic reserve series.
That series is rather large and has some problems so I think that it
is not suitable for stable tree.
Thanks.
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
2016-09-28 5:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
@ 2016-09-28 7:54 ` Xishi Qiu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-28 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joonsoo Kim
Cc: Michal Hocko, Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML,
Linux MM, Yisheng Xie
On 2016/9/28 13:52, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:02:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 26-09-16 18:17:50, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>> On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>>> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>>>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
>>>>>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
>>>>>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
>>>>>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
>>>>>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
>>>>>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
>>>>>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
>>>>>>> min >>= 1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (free_pages <= min)
>>>>>>> return false;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
>>>>>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
>>>>>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
>>>>>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
>>>>>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
>>>>>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
>>>>>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
>>>>>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
>>>>>> return false;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
>>>>>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Michal,
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
>>>>> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
>>>>> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
>>>>> will alloc *failed*, right?
>>>>
>>>> As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
>>>> and high order requests.
>>>
>>> Shall we backport to stable?
>>
>> I dunno, it was a part of a larger series with high atomic reserves and
>> changes which sound a bit intrusive for the stable kernel. Considering
>> that CMA was known to be problematic and there are still some issues
>> left I do not think this is worth the trouble/risk.
>
> CMA problem is known one. I mentioned it on my ZONE_CMA series v1 but
> removed due to Mel's high atomic reserve series.
>
> That series is rather large and has some problems so I think that it
> is not suitable for stable tree.
>
> Thanks.
>
OK, I know, thank you very much.
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok()
@ 2016-09-28 7:54 ` Xishi Qiu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Xishi Qiu @ 2016-09-28 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joonsoo Kim
Cc: Michal Hocko, Mel Gorman, Johannes Weiner, Vlastimil Babka, LKML,
Linux MM, Yisheng Xie
On 2016/9/28 13:52, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:02:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 26-09-16 18:17:50, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>> On 2016/9/26 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon 26-09-16 17:16:54, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>>> On 2016/9/26 16:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon 26-09-16 16:47:57, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>>>>> commit 97a16fc82a7c5b0cfce95c05dfb9561e306ca1b1
>>>>>>> (mm, page_alloc: only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations)
>>>>>>> rewrite the high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok(), but I think it
>>>>>>> quietly fix a bug. Please see the following.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before this patch, the high-order check is this:
>>>>>>> __zone_watermark_ok()
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> for (o = 0; o < order; o++) {
>>>>>>> /* At the next order, this order's pages become unavailable */
>>>>>>> free_pages -= z->free_area[o].nr_free << o;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* Require fewer higher order pages to be free */
>>>>>>> min >>= 1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (free_pages <= min)
>>>>>>> return false;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we have cma memory, and we alloc a high-order movable page, then it's right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if we alloc a high-order unmovable page(e.g. alloc kernel stack in dup_task_struct()),
>>>>>>> and there are a lot of high-order cma pages, but little high-order unmovable
>>>>>>> pages, the it is still return *true*, but we will alloc *failed* finally, because
>>>>>>> we cannot fallback from migrate_unmovable to migrate_cma, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIR CMA wmark check was always tricky and the above commit has made
>>>>>> the situation at least a bit more clear. Anyway IIRC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
>>>>>> /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
>>>>>> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
>>>>>> free_cma = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (free_pages - free_cma <= min + z->lowmem_reserve[classzone_idx])
>>>>>> return false;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> should reduce the prioblem because a lot of CMA pages should just get us
>>>>>> below the wmark + reserve boundary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Michal,
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have many high-order cma pages, and the left pages (unmovable/movable/reclaimable)
>>>>> are also enough, but they are fragment, then it will triger the problem.
>>>>> If we alloc a high-order unmovable page, water mark check return *true*, but we
>>>>> will alloc *failed*, right?
>>>>
>>>> As Vlastimil has written. There were known issues with the wmark checks
>>>> and high order requests.
>>>
>>> Shall we backport to stable?
>>
>> I dunno, it was a part of a larger series with high atomic reserves and
>> changes which sound a bit intrusive for the stable kernel. Considering
>> that CMA was known to be problematic and there are still some issues
>> left I do not think this is worth the trouble/risk.
>
> CMA problem is known one. I mentioned it on my ZONE_CMA series v1 but
> removed due to Mel's high atomic reserve series.
>
> That series is rather large and has some problems so I think that it
> is not suitable for stable tree.
>
> Thanks.
>
OK, I know, thank you very much.
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
> .
>
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-28 7:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-09-26 8:47 [RFC] mm: a question about high-order check in __zone_watermark_ok() Xishi Qiu
2016-09-26 8:47 ` Xishi Qiu
2016-09-26 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-26 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-26 8:58 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26 8:58 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26 9:16 ` Xishi Qiu
2016-09-26 9:16 ` Xishi Qiu
2016-09-26 9:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26 9:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26 10:17 ` Xishi Qiu
2016-09-26 10:17 ` Xishi Qiu
2016-09-26 11:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26 11:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-28 5:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-09-28 5:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-09-28 7:54 ` Xishi Qiu
2016-09-28 7:54 ` Xishi Qiu
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.