From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/vmalloc: rework the drain logic
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:40:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mtzeunsi.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201118161623.GA21171@pc636> (Uladzislau Rezki's message of "Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:16:23 +0100")
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:44:13AM +0800, huang ying wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:04 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:37:34AM +0800, huang ying wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:00 AM Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
>> > > <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > A current "lazy drain" model suffers from at least two issues.
>> > > >
>> > > > First one is related to the unsorted list of vmap areas, thus
>> > > > in order to identify the [min:max] range of areas to be drained,
>> > > > it requires a full list scan. What is a time consuming if the
>> > > > list is too long.
>> > > >
>> > > > Second one and as a next step is about merging all fragments
>> > > > with a free space. What is also a time consuming because it
>> > > > has to iterate over entire list which holds outstanding lazy
>> > > > areas.
>> > > >
>> > > > See below the "preemptirqsoff" tracer that illustrates a high
>> > > > latency. It is ~24 676us. Our workloads like audio and video
>> > > > are effected by such long latency:
>> > >
>> > > This seems like a real problem. But I found there's long latency
>> > > avoidance mechanism in the loop in __purge_vmap_area_lazy() as
>> > > follows,
>> > >
>> > > if (atomic_long_read(&vmap_lazy_nr) < resched_threshold)
>> > > cond_resched_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
>> > >
>> > I have added that "resched threshold" because of on my tests i could
>> > simply hit out of memory, due to the fact that a drain work is not up
>> > to speed to process such long outstanding list of vmap areas.
>>
>> OK. Now I think I understand the problem. For free area purging,
>> there are multiple "producers" but one "consumer", and it lacks enough
>> mechanism to slow down the "producers" if "consumer" can not catch up.
>> And your patch tries to resolve the problem via accelerating the
>> "consumer".
>>
> Seems, correct. But just in case one more time:
>
> the cond_resched_lock was added once upon a time to get rid of long
> preemption off time. Due to dropping the lock, "producers" can start
> generate further vmap area, so "consumer" can not catch up. Seems
Yes. And in theory there are vfree() storm, that is, thousands vfree()
can be called in short time. But I don't think that's practical use
case.
> Later on, a resched threshold was added. It is just a simple protection
> threshold, passing which, a freeing is prioritized back over allocation,
> so we guarantee that we do not hit out of memory.
Yes. That can accelerate freeing if necessary.
>>
>> That isn't perfect, but I think we may have quite some opportunities
>> to merge the free areas, so it should just work.
>>
> Yes, merging opportunity should do the work. But of course there are
> exceptions.
>
>> And I found the long latency avoidance logic in
>> __purge_vmap_area_lazy() appears problematic,
>>
>> if (atomic_long_read(&vmap_lazy_nr) < resched_threshold)
>> cond_resched_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
>>
>> Shouldn't it be something as follows?
>>
>> if (i >= BATCH && atomic_long_read(&vmap_lazy_nr) <
>> resched_threshold) {
>> cond_resched_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
>> i = 0;
>> } else
>> i++;
>>
>> This will accelerate the purging via batching and slow down vmalloc()
>> via holding free_vmap_area_lock. If it makes sense, can we try this?
>>
> Probably we can switch to just using "batch" methodology:
>
> <snip>
> if (!(i++ % batch_threshold))
> cond_resched_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
> <snip>
That's the typical long latency avoidance method.
> The question is, which value we should use as a batch_threshold: 100, 1000, etc.
I think we can do some measurement to determine it?
> Apart of it and in regard to CONFIG_KASAN_VMALLOC, it seems that we are not
> allowed to drop the free_vmap_area_lock at all. Because any simultaneous
> allocations are not allowed within a drain region, so it should occur in
> disjoint regions. But i need to double check it.
>
>>
>> And, can we reduce lazy_max_pages() to control the length of the
>> purging list? It could be > 8K if the vmalloc/vfree size is small.
>>
> We can adjust it for sure. But it will influence on number of global
> TLB flushes that must be performed.
Em... For example, if we set it to 100, then the number of the TLB
flushes can be reduced to 1% of the un-optimized implementation
already. Do you think so?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-19 1:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-16 22:00 [PATCH 1/2] mm/vmalloc: use free_vm_area() if an allocation fails Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-11-16 22:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/vmalloc: rework the drain logic Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2020-11-17 2:37 ` huang ying
2020-11-17 13:04 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-11-18 2:44 ` huang ying
2020-11-18 16:16 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-11-19 1:40 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2020-11-19 17:36 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-11-20 2:34 ` Huang, Ying
2020-11-23 13:59 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-11-24 2:25 ` Huang, Ying
2020-11-24 16:40 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2020-11-25 0:52 ` Huang, Ying
2020-11-25 20:34 ` Uladzislau Rezki
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=87mtzeunsi.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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 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).