From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751735AbcDUIOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:14:35 -0400 Received: from out4133-2.mail.aliyun.com ([42.120.133.2]:64882 "EHLO out4133-2.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751485AbcDUIO3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:14:29 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 15000 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:14:26 EDT X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R141e4;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e02c03282;MF=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=12;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_----4j0T91S_1461226436; Reply-To: "Hillf Danton" From: "Hillf Danton" To: "'Michal Hocko'" , "'Andrew Morton'" Cc: "'Linus Torvalds'" , "'Johannes Weiner'" , "'Mel Gorman'" , "'David Rientjes'" , "'Tetsuo Handa'" , "'Joonsoo Kim'" , "'Vlastimil Babka'" , , "'LKML'" , "'Michal Hocko'" References: <1461181647-8039-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1461181647-8039-14-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1461181647-8039-14-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] mm: consider compaction feedback also for costly allocation Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:13:56 +0800 Message-ID: <02f201d19ba5$c0c7e550$4257aff0$@alibaba-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQG1HgS+iScJ1ld6BkmHPkLx52RrNAMn9Ctan7PPbfA= Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > From: Michal Hocko > > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER retry logic is mostly handled inside > should_reclaim_retry currently where we decide to not retry after at > least order worth of pages were reclaimed or the watermark check for at > least one zone would succeed after reclaiming all pages if the reclaim > hasn't made any progress. Compaction feedback is mostly ignored and we > just try to make sure that the compaction did at least something before > giving up. > > The first condition was added by a41f24ea9fd6 ("page allocator: smarter > retry of costly-order allocations) and it assumed that lumpy reclaim > could have created a page of the sufficient order. Lumpy reclaim, > has been removed quite some time ago so the assumption doesn't hold > anymore. Remove the check for the number of reclaimed pages and rely > on the compaction feedback solely. should_reclaim_retry now only > makes sure that we keep retrying reclaim for high order pages only > if they are hidden by watermaks so order-0 reclaim makes really sense. > > should_compact_retry now keeps retrying even for the costly allocations. > The number of retries is reduced wrt. !costly requests because they are > less important and harder to grant and so their pressure shouldn't cause > contention for other requests or cause an over reclaim. We also do not > reset no_progress_loops for costly request to make sure we do not keep > reclaiming too agressively. > > This has been tested by running a process which fragments memory: > - compact memory > - mmap large portion of the memory (1920M on 2GRAM machine with 2G > of swapspace) > - MADV_DONTNEED single page in PAGE_SIZE*((1UL< steps until certain amount of memory is freed (250M in my test) > and reduce the step to (step / 2) + 1 after reaching the end of > the mapping > - then run a script which populates the page cache 2G (MemTotal) > from /dev/zero to a new file > And then tries to allocate > nr_hugepages=$(awk '/MemAvailable/{printf "%d\n", $2/(2*1024)}' /proc/meminfo) > huge pages. > > root@test1:~# echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory;echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory; ./fragment-mem-and-run > /root/alloc_hugepages.sh 1920M 250M > Node 0, zone DMA 31 28 31 10 2 0 2 1 2 3 1 > Node 0, zone DMA32 437 319 171 50 28 25 20 16 16 14 437 > > * This is the /proc/buddyinfo after the compaction > > Done fragmenting. size=2013265920 freed=262144000 > Node 0, zone DMA 165 48 3 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 > Node 0, zone DMA32 35109 14575 185 51 41 12 6 0 0 0 0 > > * /proc/buddyinfo after memory got fragmented > > Executing "/root/alloc_hugepages.sh" > Eating some pagecache > 508623+0 records in > 508623+0 records out > 2083319808 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 11.7292 s, 178 MB/s > Node 0, zone DMA 3 5 3 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 > Node 0, zone DMA32 111 344 153 20 24 10 3 0 0 0 0 > > * /proc/buddyinfo after page cache got eaten > > Trying to allocate 129 > 129 > > * 129 hugepages requested and all of them granted. > > Node 0, zone DMA 3 5 3 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 > Node 0, zone DMA32 127 97 30 99 11 6 2 1 4 0 0 > > * /proc/buddyinfo after hugetlb allocation. > > 10 runs will behave as follows: > Trying to allocate 130 > 130 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 129 > -- > Trying to allocate 128 > 128 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 129 > -- > Trying to allocate 128 > 128 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 129 > -- > Trying to allocate 132 > 132 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 129 > -- > Trying to allocate 128 > 128 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 129 > > So basically 100% success for all 10 attempts. > Without the patch numbers looked much worse: > Trying to allocate 128 > 12 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 14 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 7 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 16 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 30 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 38 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 19 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 37 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 28 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 37 > > Just for completness the base kernel without oom detection rework looks > as follows: > Trying to allocate 127 > 30 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 12 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 52 > -- > Trying to allocate 128 > 32 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 12 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 10 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 32 > -- > Trying to allocate 128 > 14 > -- > Trying to allocate 128 > 16 > -- > Trying to allocate 129 > 8 > > As we can see the success rate is much more volatile and smaller without > this patch. So the patch not only makes the retry logic for costly > requests more sensible the success rate is even higher. > > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko > --- Acked-by: Hillf Danton > mm/page_alloc.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index bb4df1be0d43..d5a938f12554 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -3019,6 +3019,8 @@ should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result compact_result, > enum migrate_mode *migrate_mode, > int compaction_retries) > { > + int max_retries = MAX_COMPACT_RETRIES; > + > if (!order) > return false; > > @@ -3036,17 +3038,24 @@ should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result compact_result, > } > > /* > - * !costly allocations are really important and we have to make sure > - * the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early due to locks > - * contention before we go OOM. Still cap the reclaim retry loops with > - * progress to prevent from looping forever and potential trashing. > + * make sure the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early > + * due to locks contention before we declare that we should give up. > */ > - if (order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) { > - if (compaction_withdrawn(compact_result)) > - return true; > - if (compaction_retries <= MAX_COMPACT_RETRIES) > - return true; > - } > + if (compaction_withdrawn(compact_result)) > + return true; > + > + /* > + * !costly requests are much more important than __GFP_REPEAT > + * costly ones because they are de facto nofail and invoke OOM > + * killer to move on while costly can fail and users are ready > + * to cope with that. 1/4 retries is rather arbitrary but we > + * would need much more detailed feedback from compaction to > + * make a better decision. > + */ > + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) > + max_retries /= 4; > + if (compaction_retries <= max_retries) > + return true; > > return false; > } > @@ -3207,18 +3216,17 @@ static inline bool is_thp_gfp_mask(gfp_t gfp_mask) > * Checks whether it makes sense to retry the reclaim to make a forward progress > * for the given allocation request. > * The reclaim feedback represented by did_some_progress (any progress during > - * the last reclaim round), pages_reclaimed (cumulative number of reclaimed > - * pages) and no_progress_loops (number of reclaim rounds without any progress > - * in a row) is considered as well as the reclaimable pages on the applicable > - * zone list (with a backoff mechanism which is a function of no_progress_loops). > + * the last reclaim round) and no_progress_loops (number of reclaim rounds without > + * any progress in a row) is considered as well as the reclaimable pages on the > + * applicable zone list (with a backoff mechanism which is a function of > + * no_progress_loops). > * > * Returns true if a retry is viable or false to enter the oom path. > */ > static inline bool > should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order, > struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags, > - bool did_some_progress, unsigned long pages_reclaimed, > - int no_progress_loops) > + bool did_some_progress, int no_progress_loops) > { > struct zone *zone; > struct zoneref *z; > @@ -3230,14 +3238,6 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order, > if (no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES) > return false; > > - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) { > - if (pages_reclaimed >= (1< - return false; > - > - if (did_some_progress) > - return true; > - } > - > /* > * Keep reclaiming pages while there is a chance this will lead somewhere. > * If none of the target zones can satisfy our allocation request even > @@ -3308,7 +3308,6 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > bool can_direct_reclaim = gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM; > struct page *page = NULL; > int alloc_flags; > - unsigned long pages_reclaimed = 0; > unsigned long did_some_progress; > enum migrate_mode migration_mode = MIGRATE_ASYNC; > enum compact_result compact_result; > @@ -3444,16 +3443,18 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT)) > goto noretry; > > - if (did_some_progress) { > + /* > + * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean > + * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so > + * always increment the no progress counter for them > + */ > + if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) > no_progress_loops = 0; > - pages_reclaimed += did_some_progress; > - } else { > + else > no_progress_loops++; > - } > > if (should_reclaim_retry(gfp_mask, order, ac, alloc_flags, > - did_some_progress > 0, pages_reclaimed, > - no_progress_loops)) > + did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops)) > goto retry; > > /* > -- > 2.8.0.rc3