| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <28c262360911130638l7c0becbbsd09db0fd3837ffa5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:38:37 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org\"" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] vmscan: Take order into consideration when deciding
if kswapd is in trouble
Hi, Koskai.
I missed this patch.
I noticed this after Mel reply your patch.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> If reclaim fails to make sufficient progress, the priority is raised.
>> Once the priority is higher, kswapd starts waiting on congestion.
>> However, on systems with large numbers of high-order atomics due to
>> crappy network cards, it's important that kswapd keep working in
>> parallel to save their sorry ass.
>>
>> This patch takes into account the order kswapd is reclaiming at before
>> waiting on congestion. The higher the order, the longer it is before
>> kswapd considers itself to be in trouble. The impact is that kswapd
>> works harder in parallel rather than depending on direct reclaimers or
>> atomic allocations to fail.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index ffa1766..5e200f1 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static int sleeping_prematurely(int order, long remaining)
>> static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
>> {
>> int all_zones_ok;
>> - int priority;
>> + int priority, congestion_priority;
>> int i;
>> unsigned long total_scanned;
>> struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
>> @@ -1967,6 +1967,16 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
>> */
>> int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
>>
>> + /*
>> + * When priority reaches congestion_priority, kswapd will sleep
>> + * for a short time while congestion clears. The higher the
>> + * order being reclaimed, the less likely kswapd will go to
>> + * sleep as high-order allocations are harder to reclaim and
>> + * stall direct reclaimers longer
>> + */
>> + congestion_priority = DEF_PRIORITY - 2;
>> + congestion_priority -= min(congestion_priority, sc.order);
>
> This calculation mean
>
> sc.order congestion_priority scan-pages
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 0 10 1/1024 * zone-mem
> 1 9 1/512 * zone-mem
> 2 8 1/256 * zone-mem
> 3 7 1/128 * zone-mem
> 4 6 1/64 * zone-mem
> 5 5 1/32 * zone-mem
> 6 4 1/16 * zone-mem
> 7 3 1/8 * zone-mem
> 8 2 1/4 * zone-mem
> 9 1 1/2 * zone-mem
> 10 0 1 * zone-mem
> 11+ 0 1 * zone-mem
>
> I feel this is too agressive. The intention of this congestion_wait()
> is to prevent kswapd use 100% cpu time. but the above promotion seems
> break it.
I can't understand your point.
Mel didn't change the number of scan pages.
It denpends on priority.
He just added another one to prevent frequent contestion_wait.
Still, shrink_zone is called with priority, not congestion_priority.
> example,
> ia64 have 256MB hugepage (i.e. order=14). it mean kswapd never sleep.
Indeed. Good catch.
> example2,
> order-3 (i.e. PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) makes one of most inefficent
> reclaim, because it doesn't use lumpy recliam.
> I've seen 128GB size zone, it mean 1/128 = 1GB. oh well, kswapd definitely
> waste cpu time 100%.
Above I said, It depends on priority, not congestion_priority.
>
>> +
>> loop_again:
>> total_scanned = 0;
>> sc.nr_reclaimed = 0;
>> @@ -2092,7 +2102,7 @@ loop_again:
>> * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble. Take a nap, then take
>> * another pass across the zones.
>> */
>> - if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
>> + if (total_scanned && priority < congestion_priority)
>> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
>
> Instead, How about this?
>
>
>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 64e4388..937e90d 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1938,6 +1938,7 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
> * free_pages == high_wmark_pages(zone).
> */
> int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
> + int has_under_min_watermark_zone = 0;
Let's make the shorter.
How about "under_min_watermark"?
>
> loop_again:
> total_scanned = 0;
> @@ -2057,6 +2058,15 @@ loop_again:
> if (total_scanned > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 2 &&
> total_scanned > sc.nr_reclaimed + sc.nr_reclaimed / 2)
> sc.may_writepage = 1;
> +
> + /*
> + * We are still under min water mark. it mean we have
> + * GFP_ATOMIC allocation failure risk. Hurry up!
> + */
> + if (!zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, min_wmark_pages(zone),
> + end_zone, 0))
> + has_under_min_watermark_zone = 1;
> +
> }
> if (all_zones_ok)
> break; /* kswapd: all done */
> @@ -2064,7 +2074,8 @@ loop_again:
> * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble. Take a nap, then take
> * another pass across the zones.
> */
> - if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> + if (total_scanned && (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) &&
> + !has_under_min_watermark_zone)
> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
>
> /*
> --
> 1.6.2.5
Anyway, Looks good to me.
It's more straightforward than Mel's one, I think.
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists