From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E002BC6FA8B for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 23:33:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 5DF1F940009; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 58DBA940007; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:33:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 47E14940009; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:33:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2A6940007 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6C5161CC1 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 23:33:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79930437804.16.6D6714A Received: from mail-wr1-f52.google.com (mail-wr1-f52.google.com [209.85.221.52]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B5540014 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 23:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f52.google.com with SMTP id t7so1483564wrm.10 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:33:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=zo4ltCOqvnTRmheIGSQtx2+8j/N9c4MsCQoSZifobiY=; b=XxYsJfS9I4u3WvjfJ8LQpuGZtQ78FQTZpF4Po6g58SMUSF6Fn44k9ioE1xDvYN0zvC zk6GHbBqA+hFVXCyzCBHcFdxF7txQaUlEQU51SiHbT5qT5oJ7wOy/vCT2fYtRe1R4lXF LoBZspappMyt+wvzYhW1/kWIyJm1lk31szvu2l4HVF5XpWbBnmbjaqNimDpYO39nrp8e YM5fLKYNI0CzlrAvOv+9ueG2bvqH9TQIy2DTLty7d9Ah+p48Z1hM4fE26ifh0wouojXR fv9RPnkXJ5VGsxPfHxkoxtZEKAX5vDeLlc2kdWL34d3L4yBwxwH0wBu90R6vzKig3aDP d6Qg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=zo4ltCOqvnTRmheIGSQtx2+8j/N9c4MsCQoSZifobiY=; b=hP7HYFEIoM8m7se/5Kja97tpYOLxuFxpBal2+SG5VXhOGIKVzn53F6gYLxiYhJxNrQ DH8vJ9DNiNR6Da2xYMvbaC5KXVETVe7uQuIds69ASkQVIlrxiM0nlkrrvoqKigQJ/8XC 8ykYuoXozV2REFdvRbhutli8Tw0CXByLsGjIDMsnjwQ7hthFdIWeXEiXu1lLdcmnE7D3 CIwnKrPJV6+B2Xba+Objc7NDXUPToUEYvmeLCNEQ4+/9cTtjNBt3QzBLOyXvNOv8To1E JoqAmPLFDNRxATaOgIwluFSDzZW/3Qr6DPEZErQF2bIgYHe2pWDuQ3hSPLpw8yTriBUB LVGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0ptYIAL9BpQpDvCw+da+7q56t7d8RMCpCtEXZg4roibSv+4uBW BuesaWRufUi/dxwBKJqjc3Go17EVQpO2TUwpHDlygA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM61zot+0K7KevmrJbjGPwZQugwWN++0y3OXLM2V8v5oKdcZe2nsAlItI7mSGEgqYGx02gZQBJIpkTZNB/gbG4E= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5611:0:b0:228:e1d2:81d with SMTP id l17-20020a5d5611000000b00228e1d2081dmr12193520wrv.210.1663630380280; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:33:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220914023318.549118-1-zhanghongchen@loongson.cn> <20220914155142.bf388515a39fb45bae987231@linux-foundation.org> <6bcb4883-03d0-88eb-4c42-84fff0a9a141@loongson.cn> <54813a74-cc0e-e470-c632-78437a0d0ad4@loongson.cn> <4bd0012e-77ff-9d0d-e295-800471994aeb@loongson.cn> In-Reply-To: <4bd0012e-77ff-9d0d-e295-800471994aeb@loongson.cn> From: Yosry Ahmed Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:32:21 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: don't scan adjust too much if current is not kswapd To: Hongchen Zhang Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1663630381; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=cBOr74O6uULfw9YA9+TjCJh7eIiA12bSOrBljmJbJg3J2YohPy/RiNqV/rv2zPn8Abn/KF zNFGQ+tBKOENJ4AmOMW8cmFQINllPR4zm61UCbV08Am5PuIn45M5L+OSMYbYcCRqlsjwHJ COYv0QXZVDUpEjMA4plj1AivgE6Qwqo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=XxYsJfS9; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of yosryahmed@google.com designates 209.85.221.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yosryahmed@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1663630381; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=zo4ltCOqvnTRmheIGSQtx2+8j/N9c4MsCQoSZifobiY=; b=Yno7EKGa3Hr3JPlzH3hSHOF5c1QS+Awj+xPgxrT/5c15VxnyY28dciu8BKJHQDDEupBVcy ssLwN9EXjEwlmmRFdytX5FokPZWy6UTGsTxoPmu2OxWb78PZGcQ9gWPH5lgSvx8JVo12ht eaJhsUKXkZrzol3JWmy58SL3o/+9Sqk= X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C1B5540014 Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=XxYsJfS9; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of yosryahmed@google.com designates 209.85.221.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yosryahmed@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-Stat-Signature: msq47cisk7ppgh4ygbwfrcpope6n5y6a X-HE-Tag: 1663630381-591314 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 3:20 AM Hongchen Zhang wrote: > > Hi Andrew and Matthew, > > On 2022/9/16 pm 4:40, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 08:57:50AM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote: > >> Hi Andrew , > >> > >> On 2022/9/15 pm 5:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 04:02:41PM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote: > >>>> Hi Matthew, > >>>> On 2022/9/15 pm 3:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:19:48AM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote: > >>>>>> [ 3748.453561] INFO: task float_bessel:77920 blocked for more than 120 > >>>>>> seconds. > >>>>>> [ 3748.460839] Not tainted 5.15.0-46-generic #49-Ubuntu > >>>>>> [ 3748.466490] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables > >>>>>> this message. > >>>>>> [ 3748.474618] task:float_bessel state:D stack: 0 pid:77920 ppid: > >>>>>> 77327 flags:0x00004002 > >>>>>> [ 3748.483358] Call Trace: > >>>>>> [ 3748.485964] > >>>>>> [ 3748.488150] __schedule+0x23d/0x590 > >>>>>> [ 3748.491804] schedule+0x4e/0xc0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.495038] rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x336/0x390 > >>>>>> [ 3748.499886] ? copy_user_enhanced_fast_string+0xe/0x40 > >>>>>> [ 3748.505181] down_read+0x43/0xa0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.508518] do_user_addr_fault+0x41c/0x670 > >>>>>> [ 3748.512799] exc_page_fault+0x77/0x170 > >>>>>> [ 3748.516673] asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 > >>>>>> [ 3748.520824] RIP: 0010:copy_user_enhanced_fast_string+0xe/0x40 > >>>>>> [ 3748.526764] Code: 89 d1 c1 e9 03 83 e2 07 f3 48 a5 89 d1 f3 a4 31 c0 0f > >>>>>> 01 ca c3 cc cc cc cc 0f 1f 00 0f 01 cb 83 fa 40 0f 82 70 ff ff ff 89 d1 > >>>>>> a4 31 c0 0f 01 ca c3 cc cc cc cc 66 08 > >>>>>> [ 3748.546120] RSP: 0018:ffffaa9248fffb90 EFLAGS: 00050206 > >>>>>> [ 3748.551495] RAX: 00007f99faa1a010 RBX: ffffaa9248fffd88 RCX: > >>>>>> 0000000000000010 > >>>>>> [ 3748.558828] RDX: 0000000000001000 RSI: ffff9db397ab8ff0 RDI: > >>>>>> 00007f99faa1a000 > >>>>>> [ 3748.566160] RBP: ffffaa9248fffbf0 R08: ffffcc2fc2965d80 R09: > >>>>>> 0000000000000014 > >>>>>> [ 3748.573492] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000014 R12: > >>>>>> 0000000000001000 > >>>>>> [ 3748.580858] R13: 0000000000001000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: > >>>>>> ffffaa9248fffd98 > >>>>>> [ 3748.588196] ? copy_page_to_iter+0x10e/0x400 > >>>>>> [ 3748.592614] filemap_read+0x174/0x3e0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Interesting; it wasn't the process itself which triggered the page > >>>>> fault; the process called read() and the kernel took the page fault to > >>>>> satisfy the read() call. > >>>>> > >>>>>> [ 3748.596354] ? ima_file_check+0x6a/0xa0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.600301] generic_file_read_iter+0xe5/0x150 > >>>>>> [ 3748.604884] ext4_file_read_iter+0x5b/0x190 > >>>>>> [ 3748.609164] ? aa_file_perm+0x102/0x250 > >>>>>> [ 3748.613125] new_sync_read+0x10d/0x1a0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.617009] vfs_read+0x103/0x1a0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.620423] ksys_read+0x67/0xf0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.623743] __x64_sys_read+0x19/0x20 > >>>>>> [ 3748.627511] do_syscall_64+0x59/0xc0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.631203] ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x27/0x50 > >>>>>> [ 3748.636144] ? do_syscall_64+0x69/0xc0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.639992] ? exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x96/0xb0 > >>>>>> [ 3748.644931] ? irqentry_exit_to_user_mode+0x9/0x20 > >>>>>> [ 3748.649872] ? irqentry_exit+0x1d/0x30 > >>>>>> [ 3748.653737] ? exc_page_fault+0x89/0x170 > >>>>>> [ 3748.657795] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xcb > >>>>>> [ 3748.663030] RIP: 0033:0x7f9a852989cc > >>>>>> [ 3748.666713] RSP: 002b:00007f9a8497dc90 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: > >>>>>> 0000000000000000 > >>>>>> [ 3748.674487] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f9a8497f5c0 RCX: > >>>>>> 00007f9a852989cc > >>>>>> [ 3748.681817] RDX: 0000000000027100 RSI: 00007f99faa18010 RDI: > >>>>>> 0000000000000061 > >>>>>> [ 3748.689150] RBP: 00007f9a8497dd60 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: > >>>>>> 00007f99faa18010 > >>>>>> [ 3748.696493] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: > >>>>>> 00007f99faa18010 > >>>>>> [ 3748.703841] R13: 00005605e11c406f R14: 0000000000000001 R15: > >>>>>> 0000000000027100 > >>>>> > >>>>> ORIG_RAX is 0, which matches sys_read. > >>>>> RDI is file descriptor 0x61 > >>>>> RSI is plausibly a userspace pointer, 0x7f99faa18010 > >>>>> RDX is the length, 0x27100 or 160kB. > >>>>> > >>>>> That all seems reasonable. > >>>>> > >>>>> What I really want to know is who is _holding_ the lock. We stash > >>>>> a pointer to the task_struct in 'owner', so we could clearly find this > >>>>> out in the 'blocked for too long' report, and print their stack trace. > >>>>> > >>>> As described in the comment for __rwsem_set_reader_owned,it is hard to track > >>>> read owners.So we could not clearly find out who blocked the process,it was > >>>> caused by multiple tasks. > >>> > >>> Readers don't block readers. You have a reader here, so it's being > >>> blocked by a writer. And that writer's task_struct is stashed in > >>> rwsem->owner. It would be nice if we dumped that information > >>> automatically ... but we don't do that today. Perhaps you could > >>> grab that information from a crash dump if you have one. > >>> > >>>>> You must have done something like this already in order to deduce that > >>>>> it was the direct reclaim path that was the problem? > >>>>> > >>>> The method we used is to track the direct reclaim using the > >>>> trace_mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_{begin,end} interface.When the problem > >>>> occurred,we could get a very large "nr_reclaimed" which is not a desirable > >>>> value for process except kswapd. > >>> > >>> I disagree. If a process needs to allocate memory then it should be > >>> paying the cost of reclaiming that memory itself. kswapd is a last > >>> resort to reclaim memory when we have a workload (eg a network router) > >>> that does its memory allocation primarily in interrupt context. > >>> > >> What's your opinion about this scan adjust issue? Is there a better way to > >> fix this issue? > > > > Yes, but we need you to gather more information about what's causing > > the issue before we can suggest what that is. > > > I think the following scenery triggers the scan adjust issue: > In function shrink_lruvec, we call get_scan_count and get the following > values: > targets[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON]=50000 > targets[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON]=50000 > targets[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]=128 > targets[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE]=129 > > After the first scan, we get more than nr_to_reclaim pages, but the > percentage of scanning nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE+LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] is 256/257, > > Then when we scan adjust, we must scan(possibly reclaim) > 256*(50000+50000)/257-256=99354 pages, which is too large and would > waste too many time. > If it is not kswapd, it is unacceptable to reclaim so many pages. > So we should limit the number of pages of scan adjust. IIUC commit 6eb90d649537 ("mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and swap floods") that was recently sent by Johannes [1] addresses a similar issue (reclaiming way beyond nr_to_reclaim when anon vs file LRU sizes are very different), but in a slightly different scenario. IIUC with Johannes's patch, scan adjustment is already limited for scenarios where scan_adjust (aka proportional_reclaim) is not initialized to true, which would be all cases except global direct reclaim on DEF_PRIORITY. Is my understanding here correct? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220802162811.39216-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org/ > > Thanks > Hongchen Zhang > >