Message-id: <00d101cce809$cabaa100$602fe300$%szyprowski@samsung.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:36:43 +0100
From:	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:	'Mel Gorman' <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
	'Michal Nazarewicz' <mina86@...a86.com>,
	'Kyungmin Park' <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	'Russell King' <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	'KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki' <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	'Daniel Walker' <dwalker@...eaurora.org>,
	'Arnd Bergmann' <arnd@...db.de>,
	'Jesse Barker' <jesse.barker@...aro.org>,
	'Jonathan Corbet' <corbet@....net>,
	'Shariq Hasnain' <shariq.hasnain@...aro.org>,
	'Chunsang Jeong' <chunsang.jeong@...aro.org>,
	'Dave Hansen' <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	'Benjamin Gaignard' <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
	'Rob Clark' <rob.clark@...aro.org>,
	'Ohad Ben-Cohen' <ohad@...ery.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 11/15] mm: trigger page reclaim in alloc_contig_range() to
 stabilize watermarks

Hello,

On Friday, February 10, 2012 12:19 PM Mel Gorman wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 04:14:46PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > > +static int __reclaim_pages(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, int count)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask);
> > > > +	struct zonelist *zonelist = node_zonelist(0, gfp_mask);
> > > > +	int did_some_progress = 0;
> > > > +	int order = 1;
> > > > +	unsigned long watermark;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Increase level of watermarks to force kswapd do his job
> > > > +	 * to stabilize at new watermark level.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	min_free_kbytes += count * PAGE_SIZE / 1024;
> > >
> > > There is a risk of overflow here although it is incredibly
> > > small. Still, a potentially nicer way of doing this was
> > >
> > > count << (PAGE_SHIFT - 10)
> > >
> > > > +	setup_per_zone_wmarks();
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Nothing prevents two or more processes updating the wmarks at the same
> > > time which is racy and unpredictable. Today it is not much of a problem
> > > but CMA makes this path hotter than it was and you may see weirdness
> > > if two processes are updating zonelists at the same time. Swap-over-NFS
> > > actually starts with a patch that serialises setup_per_zone_wmarks()
> > >
> > > You also potentially have a BIG problem here if this happens
> > >
> > > min_free_kbytes = 32768
> > > Process a: min_free_kbytes  += 65536
> > > Process a: start direct reclaim
> > > echo 16374 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
> > > Process a: exit direct_reclaim
> > > Process a: min_free_kbytes -= 65536
> > >
> > > min_free_kbytes now wraps negative and the machine hangs.
> > >
> > > The damage is confined to CMA though so I am not going to lose sleep
> > > over it but you might want to consider at least preventing parallel
> > > updates to min_free_kbytes from proc.
> >
> > Right. This approach was definitely too hacky. What do you think about replacing
> > it with the following code (I assume that setup_per_zone_wmarks() serialization
> > patch will be merged anyway so I skipped it here):
> >
> 
> It's part of a larger series and the rest of that series is
> controversial. That single patch can be split out obviously so feel free
> to add it to your series and stick your Signed-off-by on the end of it.

Ok, I will grab it from that series.

> > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > index 82f4fa5..bb9ae41 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > @@ -371,6 +371,13 @@ struct zone {
> >         /* see spanned/present_pages for more description */
> >         seqlock_t               span_seqlock;
> >  #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > +       /*
> > +        * CMA needs to increase watermark levels during the allocation
> > +        * process to make sure that the system is not starved.
> > +        */
> > +       unsigned long           min_cma_pages;
> > +#endif
> >         struct free_area        free_area[MAX_ORDER];
> >
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 824fb37..1ca52f0 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -5044,6 +5044,11 @@ void setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
> >
> >                 zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW]  = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2);
> >                 zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > +               zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] += zone->min_cma_pages;
> > +               zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] += zone->min_cma_pages;
> > +               zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] += zone->min_cma_pages;
> > +#endif
> >                 setup_zone_migrate_reserve(zone);
> >                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> >         }
> 
> This is better in that it is not vunerable to parallel updates of
> min_free_kbytes. It would be slightly tidier to introduce something
> like cma_wmark_pages() that returns min_cma_pages if CONFIG_CMA and 0
> otherwise. Use the helper to get right of this ifdef CONFIG_CMA within
> setup_per_zone_wmarks().

Thanks for the hint. I will submit this change soon.
 
> You'll still have the problem of kswapd not taking CMA pages properly into
> account when deciding whether to reclaim or not though.

This will only affect CMA clients, I hope we can fix this later once the patches
get merged. I would really like to get it into v3.4, what means that it should be
tested in next asap.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center


--
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