From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: How to favor memory allocations for WQ_MEM_RECLAIM threads? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:48:42 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170307214842.GA7500@htj.duckdns.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170307212132.GQ17542@dastard> Hello, On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 08:21:32AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I don't see how whether something is running off of a rescuer or not > > matters here. The only thing workqueue guarantees is that there's > > gonna be at least one kworker thread executing work items from the > > workqueue. Running on a rescuer doesn't necessarily indicate memory > > pressure condition. > > That's news to me. In what situations do we run the rescuer thread > other than memory allocation failure when queuing work? It's a timeout based mechanism. Whevever the delay might be coming from, the rescuer kicks in if the workqueue fails to make forward progress for a while. The only thing which can induce delay there is kthread creation path, which usually gets blocked on memory pressure but it could easily be something else - severe cpu contention, somebody holding some mutex for too long, whatever. > > It's implementable for sure. I'm just not sure how it'd help > > anything. It's not a relevant information on anything. > > Except to enable us to get closer to the "rescuer must make forwards > progress" guarantee. In this context, the rescuer is the only > context we should allow to dip into memory reserves. I'm happy if we > have to explicitly check for that and set PF_MEMALLOC ourselves > (we do that for XFS kernel threads involved in memory reclaim), > but it's not something we should set automatically on every > IO completion work item we run.... Ah, okay, that does make sense to me. Yeah, providing that test shouldn't be difficult at all. Lemme cook up a patch. Thanks. -- tejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: How to favor memory allocations for WQ_MEM_RECLAIM threads? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:48:42 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170307214842.GA7500@htj.duckdns.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170307212132.GQ17542@dastard> Hello, On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 08:21:32AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I don't see how whether something is running off of a rescuer or not > > matters here. The only thing workqueue guarantees is that there's > > gonna be at least one kworker thread executing work items from the > > workqueue. Running on a rescuer doesn't necessarily indicate memory > > pressure condition. > > That's news to me. In what situations do we run the rescuer thread > other than memory allocation failure when queuing work? It's a timeout based mechanism. Whevever the delay might be coming from, the rescuer kicks in if the workqueue fails to make forward progress for a while. The only thing which can induce delay there is kthread creation path, which usually gets blocked on memory pressure but it could easily be something else - severe cpu contention, somebody holding some mutex for too long, whatever. > > It's implementable for sure. I'm just not sure how it'd help > > anything. It's not a relevant information on anything. > > Except to enable us to get closer to the "rescuer must make forwards > progress" guarantee. In this context, the rescuer is the only > context we should allow to dip into memory reserves. I'm happy if we > have to explicitly check for that and set PF_MEMALLOC ourselves > (we do that for XFS kernel threads involved in memory reclaim), > but it's not something we should set automatically on every > IO completion work item we run.... Ah, okay, that does make sense to me. Yeah, providing that test shouldn't be difficult at all. Lemme cook up a patch. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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:[~2017-03-07 21:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-03-03 10:48 How to favor memory allocations for WQ_MEM_RECLAIM threads? Tetsuo Handa 2017-03-03 10:48 ` Tetsuo Handa 2017-03-03 13:39 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-03 13:39 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-03 15:37 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-03 15:37 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-03 15:52 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-03 15:52 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-03 17:29 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-03 17:29 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-04 14:54 ` Tetsuo Handa 2017-03-04 14:54 ` Tetsuo Handa 2017-03-06 13:25 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-06 13:25 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-06 16:08 ` Tetsuo Handa 2017-03-06 16:08 ` Tetsuo Handa 2017-03-06 16:17 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-06 16:17 ` Brian Foster 2017-03-03 23:25 ` Dave Chinner 2017-03-03 23:25 ` Dave Chinner 2017-03-07 12:15 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-07 12:15 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-07 19:36 ` Tejun Heo 2017-03-07 19:36 ` Tejun Heo 2017-03-07 21:21 ` Dave Chinner 2017-03-07 21:21 ` Dave Chinner 2017-03-07 21:48 ` Tejun Heo [this message] 2017-03-07 21:48 ` Tejun Heo 2017-03-08 23:03 ` Tejun Heo 2017-03-08 23:03 ` Tejun Heo
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=20170307214842.GA7500@htj.duckdns.org \ --to=tj@kernel.org \ --cc=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \ /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.