linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090609083153.GG18380@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:31:54 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>,
	"linuxram@...ibm.com" <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when
	zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:25:39PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:14:25PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:01:28PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that is a
> > > > more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA distances,
> > > > zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean unmapped pages will be
> > > > reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being met. The problem is that
> > > > zone_reclaim() can be in a situation where it scans excessively without
> > > > making progress.
> > > > 
> > > > One such situation is where a large tmpfs mount is occupying a large
> > > > percentage of memory overall. The pages do not get cleaned or reclaimed by
> > > > zone_reclaim(), but the lists are uselessly scanned frequencly making the
> > > > CPU spin at 100%. The scanning occurs because zone_reclaim() cannot tell
> > > > in advance the scan is pointless because the counters do not distinguish
> > > > between pagecache pages backed by disk and by RAM.  The observation in
> > > > the field is that malloc() stalls for a long time (minutes in some cases)
> > > > when this situation occurs.
> > > > 
> > > > Accounting for ram-backed file pages was considered but not implemented on
> > > > the grounds it would be introducing new branches and expensive checks into
> > > > the page cache add/remove patches and increase the number of statistics
> > > > needed in the zone. As zone_reclaim() failing is currently considered a
> > > > corner case, this seemed like overkill. Note, if there are a large number
> > > > of reports about CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA that is fixed by disabling
> > > > zone_reclaim, then this assumption is false and zone_reclaim() scanning
> > > > and failing is not a corner case but a common occurance
> > > > 
> > > > This patch reintroduces zone_reclaim_interval which was removed by commit
> > > > 34aa1330f9b3c5783d269851d467326525207422 [zoned vm counters: zone_reclaim:
> > > > remove /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_interval] because the zone counters were
> > > > considered sufficient to determine in advance if the scan would succeed.
> > > > As unsuccessful scans can still occur, zone_reclaim_interval is still
> > > > required.
> > > 
> > > Can we avoid the user visible parameter zone_reclaim_interval?
> > > 
> > 
> > You could, but then there is no way of disabling it by setting it to 0
> > either. I can't imagine why but the desired behaviour might really be to
> > spin and never go off-node unless there is no other option. They might
> > want to set it to 0 for example when determining what the right value for
> > zone_reclaim_mode is for their workloads.
> > 
> > > That means to introduce some heuristics for it.
> > 
> > I suspect the vast majority of users will ignore it unless they are runing
> > zone_reclaim_mode at the same time and even then will probably just leave
> > it as 30 as a LRU scan every 30 seconds worst case is not going to show up
> > on many profiles.
> > 
> > > Since the whole point
> > > is to avoid 100% CPU usage, we can take down the time used for this
> > > failed zone reclaim (T) and forbid zone reclaim until (NOW + 100*T).
> > > 
> > 
> > i.e. just fix it internally at 100 seconds? How is that better than
> > having an obscure tunable? I think if this heuristic exists at all, it's
> > important that an administrator be able to turn it off if absolutly
> > necessary and so something must be user-visible.
> 
> That 100*T don't mean 100 seconds. It means to keep CPU usage under 1%:
> after busy scanning for time T, let's go relax for 100*T.
> 

Do I have a means of calculating what my CPU usage is as a result of
scanning the LRU list?

If I don't and the machine is busy, would I not avoid scanning even in
situations where it should have been scanned?

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/