LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jia He <hejianet@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/vmscan: fix high cpu usage of kswapd if there
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:24:06 -0500
Message-ID: <20170222202406.GB6534@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170222201657.GA6534@cmpxchg.org>

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 03:16:57PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...] And then it sounds pretty much like what the allocator/direct
> reclaim already does.

On a side note: Michal, I'm not sure I fully understand why we need
the backoff code in should_reclaim_retry(). If no_progress_loops is
growing steadily, then we quickly reach 16 and bail anyway. Layering
on top a backoff function that *might* cut out an iteration or two
earlier in the cold path of an OOM situation seems unnecessary.
Conversely, if there *are* intermittent reclaims, no_progress_loops
gets reset straight to 0, which then also makes the backoff function
jump back to square one. So in the only situation where backing off
would make sense - making some progress, but not enough - it's not
actually backing off. It seems to me it should be enough to bail after
either 16 iterations or when free + reclaimable < watermark.

Hm?

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index c470b8fe28cf..b0e9495c0530 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3396,11 +3396,10 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(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) 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).
+ *
+ * We give up when we either have tried MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES in a row
+ * without success, or when we couldn't even meet the watermark if we
+ * reclaimed all remaining pages on the LRU lists.
  *
  * Returns true if a retry is viable or false to enter the oom path.
  */
@@ -3441,13 +3440,11 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
 		unsigned long reclaimable;
 
 		available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
-		available -= DIV_ROUND_UP((*no_progress_loops) * available,
-					  MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES);
 		available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
 
 		/*
-		 * Would the allocation succeed if we reclaimed the whole
-		 * available?
+		 * Would the allocation succeed if we reclaimed all
+		 * the reclaimable pages?
 		 */
 		if (__zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, min_wmark_pages(zone),
 				ac_classzone_idx(ac), alloc_flags, available)) {

  reply index

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-22  9:04 Jia He
2017-02-22 11:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-22 14:31   ` hejianet
2017-02-22 15:48     ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-23  2:25       ` hejianet
2017-02-22 20:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-02-22 20:24   ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2017-02-23  7:29     ` Michal Hocko
     [not found]   ` <28d09cda-e020-8289-1b1f-e19fbd3b3aeb@gmail.com>
2017-02-23  3:15     ` Fwd: " hejianet
2017-02-23  7:21     ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-23 10:19   ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-23 11:16   ` Michal Hocko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20170222202406.GB6534@cmpxchg.org \
    --to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hejianet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox