From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:18:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1489097880.1906.16.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170309180540.GA8678@cmpxchg.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2423 bytes --]
On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 13:05 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:52:36PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > It only does this to some extent. If reclaim made
> > no progress, for example due to immediately bailing
> > out because the number of already isolated pages is
> > too high (due to many parallel reclaimers), the code
> > could hit the "no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES"
> > test without ever looking at the number of reclaimable
> > pages.
> Hm, there is no early return there, actually. We bump the loop
> counter
> every time it happens, but then *do* look at the reclaimable pages.
Am I looking at an old tree? I see this code
before we look at the reclaimable pages.
/*
* Make sure we converge to OOM if we cannot make any progress
* several times in the row.
*/
if (*no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES) {
/* Before OOM, exhaust highatomic_reserve */
return unreserve_highatomic_pageblock(ac, true);
}
> > Could that create problems if we have many concurrent
> > reclaimers?
> With increased concurrency, the likelihood of OOM will go up if we
> remove the unlimited wait for isolated pages, that much is true.
>
> I'm not sure that's a bad thing, however, because we want the OOM
> killer to be predictable and timely. So a reasonable wait time in
> between 0 and forever before an allocating thread gives up under
> extreme concurrency makes sense to me.
That is a fair point, a faster OOM kill is preferable
to a system that is livelocked.
> Unless I'm mistaken, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of urgency
> behind this patch. Can we think about a general model to deal with
> allocation concurrency? Unlimited parallel direct reclaim is kinda
> bonkers in the first place. How about checking for excessive
> isolation
> counts from the page allocator and putting allocations on a
> waitqueue?
The (limited) number of reclaimers can still do a
relatively fast OOM kill, if none of them manage
to make progress.
That should avoid the potential issue you and I
both pointed out, and, as a bonus, it might actually
be faster than letting all the tasks in the system
into the direct reclaim code simultaneously.
--
All rights reversed
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-09 22:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-07 13:30 [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 19:52 ` Rik van Riel
2017-03-08 9:21 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 15:54 ` Rik van Riel
2017-03-09 9:12 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09 14:16 ` Rik van Riel
2017-03-09 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09 18:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-09 22:18 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2017-03-10 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-10 10:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-10 11:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-21 10:37 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-04-23 10:24 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-04-24 12:39 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2017-04-24 13:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-04-25 6:33 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2017-06-30 0:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-30 13:32 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-30 15:59 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-30 16:19 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-01 11:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-07-05 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-05 8:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-06 10:48 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-09 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-10 7:48 Michal Hocko
2017-07-10 13:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-07-10 13:58 ` Rik van Riel
2017-07-10 16:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-07-10 17:09 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-19 22:20 ` Andrew Morton
2017-07-20 6:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-21 23:01 ` Andrew Morton
2017-07-24 6:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-20 1:54 ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-20 10:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-07-24 7:01 ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-24 11:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-07-20 13:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-24 7:03 ` Hugh Dickins
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=1489097880.1906.16.camel@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).