| 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: <BANLkTinXnhh5V0eH71=6PxZWpQxvti7QVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:49:20 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: cut down __GFP_NORETRY page allocation failures
Hi Wu, Sorry for slow response.
I guess you know why I am slow. :)
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 12:35:42AM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hi Wu,
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:17:41PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:28:24AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> > > > Test results:
>> > > >
>> > > > - the failure rate is pretty sensible to the page reclaim size,
>> > > > from 282 (WMARK_HIGH) to 704 (WMARK_MIN) to 10496 (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)
>> > > >
>> > > > - the IPIs are reduced by over 100 times
>> > >
>> > > It's reduced by 500 times indeed.
>> > >
>> > > CAL: 220449 220246 220372 220558 220251 219740 220043 219968 Function call interrupts
>> > > CAL: 93 463 410 540 298 282 272 306 Function call interrupts
>> > >
>> > > > base kernel: vanilla 2.6.39-rc3 + __GFP_NORETRY readahead page allocation patch
>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > nr_alloc_fail 10496
>> > > > allocstall 1576602
>> > >
>> > > > patched (WMARK_MIN)
>> > > > -------------------
>> > > > nr_alloc_fail 704
>> > > > allocstall 105551
>> > >
>> > > > patched (WMARK_HIGH)
>> > > > --------------------
>> > > > nr_alloc_fail 282
>> > > > allocstall 53860
>> > >
>> > > > this patch (WMARK_HIGH, limited scan)
>> > > > -------------------------------------
>> > > > nr_alloc_fail 276
>> > > > allocstall 54034
>> > >
>> > > There is a bad side effect though: the much reduced "allocstall" means
>> > > each direct reclaim will take much more time to complete. A simple solution
>> > > is to terminate direct reclaim after 10ms. I noticed that an 100ms
>> > > time threshold can reduce the reclaim latency from 621ms to 358ms.
>> > > Further lowering the time threshold to 20ms does not help reducing the
>> > > real latencies though.
>> >
>> > Experiments going on...
>> >
>> > I tried the more reasonable terminate condition: stop direct reclaim
>> > when the preferred zone is above high watermark (see the below chunk).
>> >
>> > This helps reduce the average reclaim latency to under 100ms in the
>> > 1000-dd case.
>> >
>> > However nr_alloc_fail is around 5000 and not ideal. The interesting
>> > thing is, even if zone watermark is high, the task still may fail to
>> > get a free page..
>> >
>> > @@ -2067,8 +2072,17 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_page
>> > }
>> > }
>> > total_scanned += sc->nr_scanned;
>> > - if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim)
>> > - goto out;
>> > + if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= min_reclaim) {
>> > + if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim)
>> > + goto out;
>> > + if (total_scanned > 2 * sc->nr_to_reclaim)
>> > + goto out;
>> > + if (preferred_zone &&
>> > + zone_watermark_ok_safe(preferred_zone, sc->order,
>> > + high_wmark_pages(preferred_zone),
>> > + zone_idx(preferred_zone), 0))
>> > + goto out;
>> > + }
>> >
>> > /*
>> > * Try to write back as many pages as we just scanned. This
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Fengguang
>> > ---
>> > Subject: mm: cut down __GFP_NORETRY page allocation failures
>> > Date: Thu Apr 28 13:46:39 CST 2011
>> >
>> > Concurrent page allocations are suffering from high failure rates.
>> >
>> > On a 8p, 3GB ram test box, when reading 1000 sparse files of size 1GB,
>> > the page allocation failures are
>> >
>> > nr_alloc_fail 733 # interleaved reads by 1 single task
>> > nr_alloc_fail 11799 # concurrent reads by 1000 tasks
>> >
>> > The concurrent read test script is:
>> >
>> > for i in `seq 1000`
>> > do
>> > truncate -s 1G /fs/sparse-$i
>> > dd if=/fs/sparse-$i of=/dev/null &
>> > done
>> >
>> > In order for get_page_from_freelist() to get free page,
>> >
>> > (1) try_to_free_pages() should use much higher .nr_to_reclaim than the
>> > current SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX=32, in order to draw the zone out of the
>> > possible low watermark state as well as fill the pcp with enough free
>> > pages to overflow its high watermark.
>> >
>> > (2) the get_page_from_freelist() _after_ direct reclaim should use lower
>> > watermark than its normal invocations, so that it can reasonably
>> > "reserve" some free pages for itself and prevent other concurrent
>> > page allocators stealing all its reclaimed pages.
>>
>> Do you see my old patch? The patch want't incomplet but it's not bad for showing an idea.
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=129187231129887&w=4
>> The idea is to keep a page at leat for direct reclaimed process.
>> Could it mitigate your problem or could you enhacne the idea?
>> I think it's very simple and fair solution.
>
> No it's not helping my problem, nr_alloc_fail and CAL are still high:
Unfortunately, my patch doesn't consider order-0 pages, as you mentioned below.
I read your mail which states it doesn't help although it considers
order-0 pages and drain.
Actually, I tried to look into that but in my poor system(core2duo, 2G
ram), nr_alloc_fail never happens. :(
I will try it in other desktop but I am not sure I can reproduce it.
>
> root@fat /home/wfg# ./test-dd-sparse.sh
> start time: 246
> total time: 531
> nr_alloc_fail 14097
> allocstall 1578332
> LOC: 542698 538947 536986 567118 552114 539605 541201 537623 Local timer interrupts
> RES: 3368 1908 1474 1476 2809 1602 1500 1509 Rescheduling interrupts
> CAL: 223844 224198 224268 224436 223952 224056 223700 223743 Function call interrupts
> TLB: 381 27 22 19 96 404 111 67 TLB shootdowns
>
> root@fat /home/wfg# getdelays -dip `pidof dd`
> print delayacct stats ON
> printing IO accounting
> PID 5202
>
>
> CPU count real total virtual total delay total
> 1132 3635447328 3627947550 276722091605
> IO count delay total delay average
> 2 187809974 62ms
> SWAP count delay total delay average
> 0 0 0ms
> RECLAIM count delay total delay average
> 1334 35304580824 26ms
> dd: read=278528, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>
> I guess your patch is mainly fixing the high order allocations while
> my workload is mainly order 0 readahead page allocations. There are
> 1000 forks, however the "start time: 246" seems to indicate that the
> order-1 reclaim latency is not improved.
Maybe, 8K * 1000 isn't big footprint so I think reclaim doesn't happen.
>
> I'll try modifying your patch and see how it works out. The obvious
> change is to apply it to the order-0 case. Hope this won't create much
> more isolated pages.
>
> Attached is your patch rebased to 2.6.39-rc3, after resolving some
> merge conflicts and fixing a trivial NULL pointer bug.
Thanks!
I would like to see detail with it in my system if I can reproduce it.
>
>> >
>> > Some notes:
>> >
>> > - commit 9ee493ce ("mm: page allocator: drain per-cpu lists after direct
>> > reclaim allocation fails") has the same target, however is obviously
>> > costly and less effective. It seems more clean to just remove the
>> > retry and drain code than to retain it.
>>
>> Tend to agree.
>> My old patch can solve it, I think.
>
> Sadly nope. See above.
>
>> >
>> > - it's a bit hacky to reclaim more than requested pages inside
>> > do_try_to_free_page(), and it won't help cgroup for now
>> >
>> > - it only aims to reduce failures when there are plenty of reclaimable
>> > pages, so it stops the opportunistic reclaim when scanned 2 times pages
>> >
>> > Test results:
>> >
>> > - the failure rate is pretty sensible to the page reclaim size,
>> > from 282 (WMARK_HIGH) to 704 (WMARK_MIN) to 10496 (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)
>> >
>> > - the IPIs are reduced by over 100 times
>> >
>> > base kernel: vanilla 2.6.39-rc3 + __GFP_NORETRY readahead page allocation patch
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > nr_alloc_fail 10496
>> > allocstall 1576602
>> >
>> > slabs_scanned 21632
>> > kswapd_steal 4393382
>> > kswapd_inodesteal 124
>> > kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly 885
>> > kswapd_high_wmark_hit_quickly 2321
>> > kswapd_skip_congestion_wait 0
>> > pageoutrun 29426
>> >
>> > CAL: 220449 220246 220372 220558 220251 219740 220043 219968 Function call interrupts
>> >
>> > LOC: 536274 532529 531734 536801 536510 533676 534853 532038 Local timer interrupts
>> > RES: 3032 2128 1792 1765 2184 1703 1754 1865 Rescheduling interrupts
>> > TLB: 189 15 13 17 64 294 97 63 TLB shootdowns
>> >
>> > patched (WMARK_MIN)
>> > -------------------
>> > nr_alloc_fail 704
>> > allocstall 105551
>> >
>> > slabs_scanned 33280
>> > kswapd_steal 4525537
>> > kswapd_inodesteal 187
>> > kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly 4980
>> > kswapd_high_wmark_hit_quickly 2573
>> > kswapd_skip_congestion_wait 0
>> > pageoutrun 35429
>> >
>> > CAL: 93 286 396 754 272 297 275 281 Function call interrupts
>> >
>> > LOC: 520550 517751 517043 522016 520302 518479 519329 517179 Local timer interrupts
>> > RES: 2131 1371 1376 1269 1390 1181 1409 1280 Rescheduling interrupts
>> > TLB: 280 26 27 30 65 305 134 75 TLB shootdowns
>> >
>> > patched (WMARK_HIGH)
>> > --------------------
>> > nr_alloc_fail 282
>> > allocstall 53860
>> >
>> > slabs_scanned 23936
>> > kswapd_steal 4561178
>> > kswapd_inodesteal 0
>> > kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly 2760
>> > kswapd_high_wmark_hit_quickly 1748
>> > kswapd_skip_congestion_wait 0
>> > pageoutrun 32639
>> >
>> > CAL: 93 463 410 540 298 282 272 306 Function call interrupts
>> >
>> > LOC: 513956 510749 509890 514897 514300 512392 512825 510574 Local timer interrupts
>> > RES: 1174 2081 1411 1320 1742 2683 1380 1230 Rescheduling interrupts
>> > TLB: 274 21 19 22 57 317 131 61 TLB shootdowns
>> >
>> > patched (WMARK_HIGH, limited scan)
>> > ----------------------------------
>> > nr_alloc_fail 276
>> > allocstall 54034
>> >
>> > slabs_scanned 24320
>> > kswapd_steal 4507482
>> > kswapd_inodesteal 262
>> > kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly 2638
>> > kswapd_high_wmark_hit_quickly 1710
>> > kswapd_skip_congestion_wait 0
>> > pageoutrun 32182
>> >
>> > CAL: 69 443 421 567 273 279 269 334 Function call interrupts
>>
>> Looks amazing.
>
> Yeah, I have strong feelings against drain_all_pages() in the direct
> reclaim path. The intuition is, once drain_all_pages() is called, the
> later on direct reclaims will have less chance to fill the drained
> buffers and therefore forced into drain_all_pages() again and again.
>
> drain_all_pages() is probably an overkill for preventing OOM.
> Generally speaking, it's questionable to "squeeze the last page before
> OOM".
>
> A typical desktop enters thrashing storms before OOM, as Hugh pointed
> out, this may well not the end users wanted. I agree with him and
> personally prefer some applications to be OOM killed rather than the
> whole system goes unusable thrashing like mad.
Tend to agree. The rule is applied to embedded system, too.
Couldn't we mitigate draining just in case it is high order page.
>
>> > LOC: 514736 511698 510993 514069 514185 512986 513838 511229 Local timer interrupts
>> > RES: 2153 1556 1126 1351 3047 1554 1131 1560 Rescheduling interrupts
>> > TLB: 209 26 20 15 71 315 117 71 TLB shootdowns
>> >
>> > patched (WMARK_HIGH, limited scan, stop on watermark OK), 100 dd
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > start time: 3
>> > total time: 50
>> > nr_alloc_fail 162
>> > allocstall 45523
>> >
>> > CPU count real total virtual total delay total
>> > 921 3024540200 3009244668 37123129525
>> > IO count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > SWAP count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > RECLAIM count delay total delay average
>> > 357 4891766796 13ms
>> > dd: read=0, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>> >
>> > patched (WMARK_HIGH, limited scan, stop on watermark OK), 1000 dd
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > start time: 272
>> > total time: 509
>> > nr_alloc_fail 3913
>> > allocstall 541789
>> >
>> > CPU count real total virtual total delay total
>> > 1044 3445476208 3437200482 229919915202
>> > IO count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > SWAP count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > RECLAIM count delay total delay average
>> > 452 34691441605 76ms
>> > dd: read=0, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>> >
>> > patched (WMARK_HIGH, limited scan, stop on watermark OK, no time limit), 1000 dd
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > start time: 278
>> > total time: 513
>> > nr_alloc_fail 4737
>> > allocstall 436392
>> >
>> >
>> > CPU count real total virtual total delay total
>> > 1024 3371487456 3359441487 225088210977
>> > IO count delay total delay average
>> > 1 160631171 160ms
>> > SWAP count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > RECLAIM count delay total delay average
>> > 367 30809994722 83ms
>> > dd: read=20480, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>> >
>> >
>> > no cond_resched():
>>
>> What's this?
>
> I tried a modified patch that also removes the cond_resched() call in
> __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(), between try_to_free_pages() and
> get_page_from_freelist(). It seems not helping noticeably.
>
> It looks safe to remove that cond_resched() as we already have such
> calls in shrink_page_list().
I tried similar thing but Andrew have a concern about it.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/24/138
>
>> >
>> > start time: 263
>> > total time: 516
>> > nr_alloc_fail 5144
>> > allocstall 436787
>> >
>> > CPU count real total virtual total delay total
>> > 1018 3305497488 3283831119 241982934044
>> > IO count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > SWAP count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > RECLAIM count delay total delay average
>> > 328 31398481378 95ms
>> > dd: read=0, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>> >
>> > zone_watermark_ok_safe():
>> >
>> > start time: 266
>> > total time: 513
>> > nr_alloc_fail 4526
>> > allocstall 440246
>> >
>> > CPU count real total virtual total delay total
>> > 1119 3640446568 3619184439 240945024724
>> > IO count delay total delay average
>> > 3 303620082 101ms
>> > SWAP count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > RECLAIM count delay total delay average
>> > 372 27320731898 73ms
>> > dd: read=77824, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>> >
>
>> > start time: 275
>>
>> What's meaing of start time?
>
> It's the time taken to start 1000 dd's.
>
>> > total time: 517
>>
>> Total time is elapsed time on your experiment?
>
> Yeah. They are generated with this script.
>
> $ cat ~/bin/test-dd-sparse.sh
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> mount /dev/sda7 /fs
>
> tic=$(date +'%s')
>
> for i in `seq 1000`
> do
> truncate -s 1G /fs/sparse-$i
> dd if=/fs/sparse-$i of=/dev/null &>/dev/null &
> done
>
> tac=$(date +'%s')
> echo start time: $((tac-tic))
>
> wait
>
> tac=$(date +'%s')
> echo total time: $((tac-tic))
>
> egrep '(nr_alloc_fail|allocstall)' /proc/vmstat
> egrep '(CAL|RES|LOC|TLB)' /proc/interrupts
>
>> > nr_alloc_fail 4694
>> > allocstall 431021
>> >
>> >
>> > CPU count real total virtual total delay total
>> > 1073 3534462680 3512544928 234056498221
>>
>> What's meaning of CPU fields?
>
> It's "waiting for a CPU (while being runnable)" as described in
> Documentation/accounting/delay-accounting.txt.
Thanks
>
>> > IO count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > SWAP count delay total delay average
>> > 0 0 0ms
>> > RECLAIM count delay total delay average
>> > 386 34751778363 89ms
>> > dd: read=0, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>> >
>>
>> Where is vanilla data for comparing latency?
>> Personally, It's hard to parse your data.
>
> Sorry it's somehow too much data and kernel revisions.. The base kernel's
> average latency is 29ms:
>
> base kernel: vanilla 2.6.39-rc3 + __GFP_NORETRY readahead page allocation patch
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CPU count real total virtual total delay total
> 1122 3676441096 3656793547 274182127286
> IO count delay total delay average
> 3 291765493 97ms
> SWAP count delay total delay average
> 0 0 0ms
> RECLAIM count delay total delay average
> 1350 39229752193 29ms
> dd: read=45056, write=0, cancelled_write=0
>
> start time: 245
> total time: 526
> nr_alloc_fail 14586
> allocstall 1578343
> LOC: 533981 529210 528283 532346 533392 531314 531705 528983 Local timer interrupts
> RES: 3123 2177 1676 1580 2157 1974 1606 1696 Rescheduling interrupts
> CAL: 218392 218631 219167 219217 218840 218985 218429 218440 Function call interrupts
> TLB: 175 13 21 18 62 309 119 42 TLB shootdowns
>
>>
>> > CC: Mel Gorman <mel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
>> > ---
>> > fs/buffer.c | 4 ++--
>> > include/linux/swap.h | 3 ++-
>> > mm/page_alloc.c | 20 +++++---------------
>> > mm/vmscan.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> > 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>> > --- linux-next.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2011-04-29 10:42:14.000000000 +0800
>> > +++ linux-next/mm/vmscan.c 2011-04-30 21:59:33.000000000 +0800
>> > @@ -2025,8 +2025,9 @@ static bool all_unreclaimable(struct zon
>> > * returns: 0, if no pages reclaimed
>> > * else, the number of pages reclaimed
>> > */
>> > -static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist,
>> > - struct scan_control *sc)
>> > +static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zone *preferred_zone,
>> > + struct zonelist *zonelist,
>> > + struct scan_control *sc)
>> > {
>> > int priority;
>> > unsigned long total_scanned = 0;
>> > @@ -2034,6 +2035,7 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_page
>> > struct zoneref *z;
>> > struct zone *zone;
>> > unsigned long writeback_threshold;
>> > + unsigned long min_reclaim = sc->nr_to_reclaim;
>>
>> Hmm,
>>
>> >
>> > get_mems_allowed();
>> > delayacct_freepages_start();
>> > @@ -2041,6 +2043,9 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_page
>> > if (scanning_global_lru(sc))
>> > count_vm_event(ALLOCSTALL);
>> >
>> > + if (preferred_zone)
>> > + sc->nr_to_reclaim += preferred_zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH];
>> > +
>>
>> Hmm, I don't like this idea.
>> The goal of direct reclaim path is to reclaim pages asap, I beleive.
>> Many thing should be achieve of background kswapd.
>> If admin changes min_free_kbytes, it can affect latency of direct reclaim.
>> It doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Yeah, it does increase delays.. in the 1000 dd case, roughly from 30ms
> to 90ms. This is a major drawback.
Yes.
>
>> > for (priority = DEF_PRIORITY; priority >= 0; priority--) {
>> > sc->nr_scanned = 0;
>> > if (!priority)
>> > @@ -2067,8 +2072,17 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_page
>> > }
>> > }
>> > total_scanned += sc->nr_scanned;
>> > - if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim)
>> > - goto out;
>> > + if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= min_reclaim) {
>> > + if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim)
>> > + goto out;
>>
>> I can't understand the logic.
>> if nr_reclaimed is bigger than min_reclaim, it's always greater than
>> nr_to_reclaim. What's meaning of min_reclaim?
>
> In direct reclaim, min_reclaim will be the legacy SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX and
> sc->nr_to_reclaim will be increased to the zone's high watermark and
> is kind of "max to reclaim".
>
>>
>> > + if (total_scanned > 2 * sc->nr_to_reclaim)
>> > + goto out;
>>
>> If there are lots of dirty pages in LRU?
>> If there are lots of unevictable pages in LRU?
>> If there are lots of mapped page in LRU but may_unmap = 0 cases?
>> I means it's rather risky early conclusion.
>
> That test means to avoid scanning too much on __GFP_NORETRY direct
> reclaims. My assumption for __GFP_NORETRY is, it should fail fast when
> the LRU pages seem hard to reclaim. And the problem in the 1000 dd
> case is, it's all easy to reclaim LRU pages but __GFP_NORETRY still
> fails from time to time, with lots of IPIs that may hurt large
> machines a lot.
I don't have enough time and a environment to test it.
So I can't make sure of it but my concern is a latency.
If you solve latency problem considering CPU scaling, I won't oppose it. :)
--
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