linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: remove __GFP_NO

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: <CA+5PVA7__=JcjLAhs5cpVK-WaZbF5bQhp5WojBJsdEt9SnG3cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:38:45 -0500
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@...hat.com>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@...mhuis.info>, bruno@...ff.to
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: remove __GFP_NO_KSWAPD"

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:14:47PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
>> > With "mm: vmscan: scale number of pages reclaimed by reclaim/compaction
>> > based on failures" reverted, Zdenek Kabelac reported the following
>> >
>> >         Hmm,  so it's just took longer to hit the problem and observe
>> >         kswapd0 spinning on my CPU again - it's not as endless like before -
>> >         but still it easily eats minutes - it helps to  turn off  Firefox
>> >         or TB  (memory hungry apps) so kswapd0 stops soon - and restart
>> >         those apps again.  (And I still have like >1GB of cached memory)
>> >
>> >         kswapd0         R  running task        0    30      2 0x00000000
>> >          ffff8801331efae8 0000000000000082 0000000000000018 0000000000000246
>> >          ffff880135b9a340 ffff8801331effd8 ffff8801331effd8 ffff8801331effd8
>> >          ffff880055dfa340 ffff880135b9a340 00000000331efad8 ffff8801331ee000
>> >         Call Trace:
>> >          [<ffffffff81555bf2>] preempt_schedule+0x42/0x60
>> >          [<ffffffff81557a95>] _raw_spin_unlock+0x55/0x60
>> >          [<ffffffff81192971>] put_super+0x31/0x40
>> >          [<ffffffff81192a42>] drop_super+0x22/0x30
>> >          [<ffffffff81193b89>] prune_super+0x149/0x1b0
>> >          [<ffffffff81141e2a>] shrink_slab+0xba/0x510
>> >
>> > The sysrq+m indicates the system has no swap so it'll never reclaim
>> > anonymous pages as part of reclaim/compaction. That is one part of the
>> > problem but not the root cause as file-backed pages could also be reclaimed.
>> >
>> > The likely underlying problem is that kswapd is woken up or kept awake
>> > for each THP allocation request in the page allocator slow path.
>> >
>> > If compaction fails for the requesting process then compaction will be
>> > deferred for a time and direct reclaim is avoided. However, if there
>> > are a storm of THP requests that are simply rejected, it will still
>> > be the the case that kswapd is awake for a prolonged period of time
>> > as pgdat->kswapd_max_order is updated each time. This is noticed by
>> > the main kswapd() loop and it will not call kswapd_try_to_sleep().
>> > Instead it will loopp, shrinking a small number of pages and calling
>> > shrink_slab() on each iteration.
>> >
>> > The temptation is to supply a patch that checks if kswapd was woken for
>> > THP and if so ignore pgdat->kswapd_max_order but it'll be a hack and not
>> > backed up by proper testing. As 3.7 is very close to release and this is
>> > not a bug we should release with, a safer path is to revert "mm: remove
>> > __GFP_NO_KSWAPD" for now and revisit it with the view to ironing out the
>> > balance_pgdat() logic in general.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
>>
>> Does anyone know if this is queued to go into 3.7 somewhere?  I looked
>> a bit and can't find it in a tree.  We have a few reports of Fedora
>> rawhide users hitting this.
>>
>
> No, because I was waiting to hear if a) it worked and preferably if the
> alternative "less safe" option worked. This close to release it might be
> better to just go with the safe option.

We've been tracking it in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866988
and people say this revert patch doesn't seem to make the issue go away
fully.  Thorsten has created another kernel with the other patch applied
for testing.

At least I think that is the latest status from the bug.  Hopefully the
commenters will chime in.

josh
--
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/