linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: Correctly check if reclaimer should schedule during shrink

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: <1306181256.2442.4.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 00:07:36 +0400
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
	Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@...il.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: Correctly check if reclaimer should
 schedule during shrink_slab

On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 13:03 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:53:55 +0100
> Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > It has been reported on some laptops that kswapd is consuming large
> > amounts of CPU and not being scheduled when SLUB is enabled during
> > large amounts of file copying. It is expected that this is due to
> > kswapd missing every cond_resched() point because;
> > 
> > shrink_page_list() calls cond_resched() if inactive pages were isolated
> >         which in turn may not happen if all_unreclaimable is set in
> >         shrink_zones(). If for whatver reason, all_unreclaimable is
> >         set on all zones, we can miss calling cond_resched().
> > 
> > balance_pgdat() only calls cond_resched if the zones are not
> >         balanced. For a high-order allocation that is balanced, it
> >         checks order-0 again. During that window, order-0 might have
> >         become unbalanced so it loops again for order-0 and returns
> >         that it was reclaiming for order-0 to kswapd(). It can then
> >         find that a caller has rewoken kswapd for a high-order and
> >         re-enters balance_pgdat() without ever calling cond_resched().
> > 
> > shrink_slab only calls cond_resched() if we are reclaiming slab
> > 	pages. If there are a large number of direct reclaimers, the
> > 	shrinker_rwsem can be contended and prevent kswapd calling
> > 	cond_resched().
> > 
> > This patch modifies the shrink_slab() case. If the semaphore is
> > contended, the caller will still check cond_resched(). After each
> > successful call into a shrinker, the check for cond_resched() remains
> > in case one shrinker is particularly slow.
> 
> So CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernels don't exhibit this problem?

Yes, they do.  They just don't hang on my sandybridge system in the same
way than non-PREEMPT kernels do.  I'm still sure it's got something to
do with rescheduling kswapd onto a different CPU ...

> I'm still unconvinced that we know what's going on here.  What's kswapd
> *doing* with all those cycles?  And if kswapd is now scheduling away,
> who is doing that work instead?  Direct reclaim?

Still in the dark about this one, too.

James


--
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/