linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?!
       [not found] <20200531103431.GA28429@amd>
@ 2020-06-01  8:55 ` Vlastimil Babka
  2020-06-12 22:45   ` Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2020-06-01  8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek, kernel list, Andrew Morton; +Cc: mhocko, linux-mm

+CC linux-mm

On 5/31/20 12:34 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> This is simple cat /dev/sda > /dev/zero... on thinkpad x60 (x86-32),
> with spinning rust.
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+  COMMAND
>    1000 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  53.3  0.0  57:34.93  kswapd0
>   27897 root      20   0    6976    580    536 R  44.5  0.0   1:44.53  cat
> 
> It keeps both CPUs busy... and I don't think that's right.

Does an older kernel behave differently here?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?!
  2020-06-01  8:55 ` 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?! Vlastimil Babka
@ 2020-06-12 22:45   ` Pavel Machek
  2020-06-12 23:05     ` Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2020-06-12 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Vlastimil Babka; +Cc: kernel list, Andrew Morton, mhocko, linux-mm

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1909 bytes --]

Hi!

> +CC linux-mm
> 
> On 5/31/20 12:34 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > This is simple cat /dev/sda > /dev/zero... on thinkpad x60 (x86-32),
> > with spinning rust.
> > 
> >   PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+  COMMAND
> >    1000 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  53.3  0.0  57:34.93  kswapd0
> >   27897 root      20   0    6976    580    536 R  44.5  0.0   1:44.53  cat
> > 
> > It keeps both CPUs busy... and I don't think that's right.
> 
> Does an older kernel behave differently here?

Let me try on x220 (x86-64, first):

  737 root      20   0    5404    744    680 R  31.2   0.0   0:09.98 cat        
 1024 root      20   0       0      0      0 S  21.4   0.0 165:22.68 kswapd0    

That was with ssd, result with spinning rust is similar:

  859 root      20   0    5404    740    672 D  21.1   0.0   0:03.33 cat        
 1024 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  11.8   0.0 165:33.07 kswapd0    

5.7-rc1+ kernel.

Performance of spinning rust is down, too, on x60:

pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda1 /dev/null
GNU ddrescue 1.19
Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
rescued:     2147 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:    3080 kB/s
   ipos:     2147 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:    5382 kB/s
      opos:     2147 MB, run time:    6.65 m,  successful read:
      0 s ago
      Finished
pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ uname -a
Linux amd 5.7.0-next-20200611+ #123 SMP PREEMPT Thu Jun 11
 15:41:22 CEST 2020 i686 GNU/Linux

And there's something clearly wrong here:

  966 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  94.4  0.0   8:18.82   kswapd0
  23933 root      20   0    4612   1112   1028 D  80.6  0.0   0:26.40   ddrescue
  

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?!
  2020-06-12 22:45   ` Pavel Machek
@ 2020-06-12 23:05     ` Pavel Machek
  2020-06-13  4:47       ` Hillf Danton
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2020-06-12 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Vlastimil Babka; +Cc: kernel list, Andrew Morton, mhocko, linux-mm

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2585 bytes --]

Hi!

> > +CC linux-mm
> > 
> > On 5/31/20 12:34 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > This is simple cat /dev/sda > /dev/zero... on thinkpad x60 (x86-32),
> > > with spinning rust.
> > > 
> > >   PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+  COMMAND
> > >    1000 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  53.3  0.0  57:34.93  kswapd0
> > >   27897 root      20   0    6976    580    536 R  44.5  0.0   1:44.53  cat
> > > 
> > > It keeps both CPUs busy... and I don't think that's right.
> > 
> > Does an older kernel behave differently here?
> 
> Let me try on x220 (x86-64, first):
> 
>   737 root      20   0    5404    744    680 R  31.2   0.0   0:09.98 cat        
>  1024 root      20   0       0      0      0 S  21.4   0.0 165:22.68 kswapd0    
> 
> That was with ssd, result with spinning rust is similar:
> 
>   859 root      20   0    5404    740    672 D  21.1   0.0   0:03.33 cat        
>  1024 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  11.8   0.0 165:33.07 kswapd0    
> 
> 5.7-rc1+ kernel.
> 
> Performance of spinning rust is down, too, on x60:
> 
> pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda1 /dev/null
> GNU ddrescue 1.19
> Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
> rescued:     2147 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:    3080 kB/s
>    ipos:     2147 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:    5382 kB/s
>       opos:     2147 MB, run time:    6.65 m,  successful read:
>       0 s ago
>       Finished
> pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ uname -a
> Linux amd 5.7.0-next-20200611+ #123 SMP PREEMPT Thu Jun 11
>  15:41:22 CEST 2020 i686 GNU/Linux
> 
> And there's something clearly wrong here:
> 
>   966 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  94.4  0.0   8:18.82   kswapd0
>   23933 root      20   0    4612   1112   1028 D  80.6  0.0   0:26.40   ddrescue
>   

Same x60 under older kernel:

pavel@amd:/data/fast/pavel$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda4 /dev/null
GNU ddrescue 1.19
Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
rescued:     6593 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:   60424 kB/s
   ipos:     6593 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:   95563 kB/s

 3539 root      20   0    4616   1136   1048 D  21.4  0.0   0:15.63 ddrescue
   865 root      20   0       0      0      0 S   6.9  0.0   0:04.91  kswapd0

Linux amd 4.6.0+ #172 SMP Sun Aug 14 11:25:34 CEST 2016 i686 GNU/Linux

These are more reasonable numbers.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?!
  2020-06-12 23:05     ` Pavel Machek
@ 2020-06-13  4:47       ` Hillf Danton
  2020-06-13  6:48         ` Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hillf Danton @ 2020-06-13  4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek
  Cc: Vlastimil Babka, kernel list, Andrew Morton, mhocko,
	Hillf Danton, linux mm


On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 01:05:52 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > +CC linux-mm
> > >
> > > On 5/31/20 12:34 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > This is simple cat /dev/sda > /dev/zero... on thinkpad x60 (x86-32),
> > > > with spinning rust.
> > > >
> > > >   PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+  COMMAND
> > > >    1000 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  53.3  0.0  57:34.93  kswapd0
> > > >   27897 root      20   0    6976    580    536 R  44.5  0.0   1:44.53  cat
> > > >
> > > > It keeps both CPUs busy... and I don't think that's right.
> > >
> > > Does an older kernel behave differently here?
> >
> > Let me try on x220 (x86-64, first):
> >
> >   737 root      20   0    5404    744    680 R  31.2   0.0   0:09.98 cat       
> >  1024 root      20   0       0      0      0 S  21.4   0.0 165:22.68 kswapd0   
> >
> > That was with ssd, result with spinning rust is similar:
> >
> >   859 root      20   0    5404    740    672 D  21.1   0.0   0:03.33 cat       
> >  1024 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  11.8   0.0 165:33.07 kswapd0   
> >
> > 5.7-rc1+ kernel.
> >
> > Performance of spinning rust is down, too, on x60:
> >
> > pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda1 /dev/null
> > GNU ddrescue 1.19
> > Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
> > rescued:     2147 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:    3080 kB/s
> >    ipos:     2147 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:    5382 kB/s
> >       opos:     2147 MB, run time:    6.65 m,  successful read:
> >       0 s ago
> >       Finished
> > pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ uname -a
> > Linux amd 5.7.0-next-20200611+ #123 SMP PREEMPT Thu Jun 11
> >  15:41:22 CEST 2020 i686 GNU/Linux
> >
> > And there's something clearly wrong here:
> >
> >     966 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  94.4  0.0   8:18.82   kswapd0
> >   23933 root      20   0    4612   1112   1028 D  80.6  0.0   0:26.40   ddrescue
> >  
> 
> Same x60 under older kernel:
> 
> pavel@amd:/data/fast/pavel$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda4 /dev/null
> GNU ddrescue 1.19
> Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
> rescued:     6593 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:   60424 kB/s
>    ipos:     6593 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:   95563 kB/s
> 
>   3539 root      20   0    4616   1136   1048 D  21.4  0.0   0:15.63 ddrescue
>    865 root      20   0       0      0      0 S   6.9  0.0   0:04.91  kswapd0
> 
> Linux amd 4.6.0+ #172 SMP Sun Aug 14 11:25:34 CEST 2016 i686 GNU/Linux
> 
> These are more reasonable numbers.

Treat referenced & active pages as reclaim cost.


--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2020,6 +2020,7 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned
 	struct page *page;
 	unsigned nr_deactivate, nr_activate;
 	unsigned nr_rotated = 0;
+	unsigned nr_refered = 0;
 	int file = is_file_lru(lru);
 	struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
 
@@ -2070,7 +2071,8 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned
 				nr_rotated += hpage_nr_pages(page);
 				list_add(&page->lru, &l_active);
 				continue;
-			}
+			} else if (!file)
+				nr_refered++;
 		}
 
 		ClearPageActive(page);	/* we are de-activating */
@@ -2098,6 +2100,14 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned
 	free_unref_page_list(&l_active);
 	trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active(pgdat->node_id, nr_taken, nr_activate,
 			nr_deactivate, nr_rotated, sc->priority, file);
+	if (file)
+		sc->file_cost += nr_rotated;
+	else
+		/*
+		 * add cost to avoid swapin in the near future which incurs IO
+		 * on top of reclaim
+		 */
+		sc->anon_cost += nr_refered;
 }
 
 unsigned long reclaim_pages(struct list_head *page_list)
@@ -2311,11 +2321,13 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec
 	file_cost = total_cost + sc->file_cost;
 	total_cost = anon_cost + file_cost;
 
-	ap = swappiness * (total_cost + 1);
-	ap /= anon_cost + 1;
-
-	fp = (200 - swappiness) * (total_cost + 1);
-	fp /= file_cost + 1;
+	ap = swappiness * total_cost;
+	if (anon_cost)
+		ap /= anon_cost;
+
+	fp = (200 - swappiness) * total_cost;
+	if (file_cost)
+		fp /= file_cost;
 
 	fraction[0] = ap;
 	fraction[1] = fp;



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?!
  2020-06-13  4:47       ` Hillf Danton
@ 2020-06-13  6:48         ` Pavel Machek
  2020-06-13  9:43           ` Hillf Danton
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2020-06-13  6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Hillf Danton
  Cc: Vlastimil Babka, kernel list, Andrew Morton, mhocko, linux mm

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4006 bytes --]

Hi!

> > > Performance of spinning rust is down, too, on x60:
> > >
> > > pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda1 /dev/null
> > > GNU ddrescue 1.19
> > > Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
> > > rescued:     2147 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:    3080 kB/s
> > >    ipos:     2147 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:    5382 kB/s
> > >       opos:     2147 MB, run time:    6.65 m,  successful read:
> > >       0 s ago
> > >       Finished
> > > pavel@amd:~/misc/hw/hdd1t$ uname -a
> > > Linux amd 5.7.0-next-20200611+ #123 SMP PREEMPT Thu Jun 11
> > >  15:41:22 CEST 2020 i686 GNU/Linux
> > >
> > > And there's something clearly wrong here:
> > >
> > >     966 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  94.4  0.0   8:18.82   kswapd0
> > >   23933 root      20   0    4612   1112   1028 D  80.6  0.0   0:26.40   ddrescue
> > >  
> > 
> > Same x60 under older kernel:
> > 
> > pavel@amd:/data/fast/pavel$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda4 /dev/null
> > GNU ddrescue 1.19
> > Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
> > rescued:     6593 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:   60424 kB/s
> >    ipos:     6593 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:   95563 kB/s
> > 
> >   3539 root      20   0    4616   1136   1048 D  21.4  0.0   0:15.63 ddrescue
> >    865 root      20   0       0      0      0 S   6.9  0.0   0:04.91  kswapd0
> > 
> > Linux amd 4.6.0+ #172 SMP Sun Aug 14 11:25:34 CEST 2016 i686 GNU/Linux
> > 
> > These are more reasonable numbers.
> 
> Treat referenced & active pages as reclaim cost.

That helps a bit, but we are still nowehere near v4.6 performance:

pavel@amd:/data/fast/pavel$ sudo ddrescue --force /dev/sda2 /dev/null
GNU ddrescue 1.19
Press Ctrl-C to interrupt
rescued:     8559 MB,  errsize:       0 B,  current rate:   53084 kB/s
   ipos:     8559 MB,   errors:       0,    average rate:   71327 kB/s

 3933 root      20   0    4612   1216   1128 R  68.6  0.0   0:12.14  ddrescue
   967 root      20   0       0      0      0 R  64.4  0.0   1:18.67  kswapd0
 
(I applied the patch on 5.7.0-next-20200611+).

Do we know which original change is causing this? Any other ideas?

Thanks,
									Pavel

> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2020,6 +2020,7 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned
>  	struct page *page;
>  	unsigned nr_deactivate, nr_activate;
>  	unsigned nr_rotated = 0;
> +	unsigned nr_refered = 0;
>  	int file = is_file_lru(lru);
>  	struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
>  
> @@ -2070,7 +2071,8 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned
>  				nr_rotated += hpage_nr_pages(page);
>  				list_add(&page->lru, &l_active);
>  				continue;
> -			}
> +			} else if (!file)
> +				nr_refered++;
>  		}
>  
>  		ClearPageActive(page);	/* we are de-activating */
> @@ -2098,6 +2100,14 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned
>  	free_unref_page_list(&l_active);
>  	trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active(pgdat->node_id, nr_taken, nr_activate,
>  			nr_deactivate, nr_rotated, sc->priority, file);
> +	if (file)
> +		sc->file_cost += nr_rotated;
> +	else
> +		/*
> +		 * add cost to avoid swapin in the near future which incurs IO
> +		 * on top of reclaim
> +		 */
> +		sc->anon_cost += nr_refered;
>  }
>  
>  unsigned long reclaim_pages(struct list_head *page_list)
> @@ -2311,11 +2321,13 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec
>  	file_cost = total_cost + sc->file_cost;
>  	total_cost = anon_cost + file_cost;
>  
> -	ap = swappiness * (total_cost + 1);
> -	ap /= anon_cost + 1;
> -
> -	fp = (200 - swappiness) * (total_cost + 1);
> -	fp /= file_cost + 1;
> +	ap = swappiness * total_cost;
> +	if (anon_cost)
> +		ap /= anon_cost;
> +
> +	fp = (200 - swappiness) * total_cost;
> +	if (file_cost)
> +		fp /= file_cost;
>  
>  	fraction[0] = ap;
>  	fraction[1] = fp;

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?!
  2020-06-13  6:48         ` Pavel Machek
@ 2020-06-13  9:43           ` Hillf Danton
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hillf Danton @ 2020-06-13  9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek
  Cc: Vlastimil Babka, Markus Elfring, kernel list, Andrew Morton,
	mhocko, linux mm


Hi

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 08:48:41 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Do we know which original change is causing this? Any other ideas?

Take a look at 264e90cc07f1 ("mm: only count actual rotations as
LRU reclaim cost") please.

Hillf



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-06-13  9:43 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <20200531103431.GA28429@amd>
2020-06-01  8:55 ` 5.7-rc0: kswapd eats cpu during a disk test?! Vlastimil Babka
2020-06-12 22:45   ` Pavel Machek
2020-06-12 23:05     ` Pavel Machek
2020-06-13  4:47       ` Hillf Danton
2020-06-13  6:48         ` Pavel Machek
2020-06-13  9:43           ` Hillf Danton

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).