linux-kernel - RE: extra free kbytes tunable

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: <8631DC5930FA9E468F04F3FD3A5D007214B0CCF3@USINDEM103.corp.hds.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:49:32 +0000
From:	Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
To:	Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>, dormando <dormando@...ia.net>,
	"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>
CC:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"lwoodman@...hat.com" <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: extra free kbytes tunable

On 02/15/2013 05:21 PM, Seiji Aguchi wrote:
> Rik, Satoru,
> 
> Do you have any comments?
> 
> Seiji

Hmm, this seems what we wanted to know in the previous thread.

Because extra_free_kbytes is quite simple and it fixes the problem,
it should be merged into upstream.

Regards,
Satoru


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org 
>> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of dormando
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:01 PM
>> To: Rik van Riel
>> Cc: Randy Dunlap; Satoru Moriya; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; 
>> linux-mm@...ck.org; lwoodman@...hat.com; Seiji Aguchi; 
>> akpm@...ux-foundation.org; hughd@...gle.com
>> Subject: extra free kbytes tunable
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As discussed in this thread:
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=131490523222031&w=2
>> (with this cleanup as well: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/2/225)
>>
>> A tunable was proposed to allow specifying the distance between 
>> pages_min and the low watermark before kswapd is kicked in to free up 
>> pages. I'd like to re-open this thread since the patch did not appear to go anywhere.
>>
>> We have a server workload wherein machines with 100G+ of "free" 
>> memory (used by page cache), scattered but frequent random io reads 
>> from 12+ SSD's, and 5gbps+ of internet traffic, will frequently hit 
>> direct reclaim in a few different ways.
>>
>> 1) It'll run into small amounts of reclaim randomly (a few hundred thousand).
>>
>> 2) A burst of reads or traffic can cause extra pressure, which kswapd 
>> occasionally responds to by freeing up 40g+ of the pagecache all at 
>> once
>> (!) while pausing the system (Argh).
>>
>> 3) A blip in an upstream provider or failover from a peer causes the 
>> kernel to allocate massive amounts of memory for retransmission 
>> queues/etc, potentially along with buffered IO reads and (some, but 
>> not often a ton) of new allocations from an application. This paired 
>> with 2) can cause the box to stall for 15+ seconds.
>>
>> We're seeing this more in 3.4/3.5/3.6, saw it less in 2.6.38. Mass 
>> reclaims are more common in newer kernels, but reclaims still happen 
>> in all kernels without raising min_free_kbytes dramatically.
>>
>> I've found that setting "lowmem_reserve_ratio" to something like "1 1 32"
>> (thus protecting the DMA32 zone) causes 2) to happen less often, and 
>> is generally less violent with 1).
>>
>> Setting min_free_kbytes to 15G or more, paired with the above, has 
>> been the best at mitigating the issue. This is simply trying to raise 
>> the distance between the min and low watermarks. With min_free_kbytes 
>> set to 15000000, that gives us a whopping 1.8G (!!!) of leeway before 
>> slamming into direct reclaim.
>>
>> So, this patch is unfortunate but wonderful at letting us reclaim 
>> 10G+ of otherwise lost memory. Could we please revisit it?
>>
>> I saw a lot of discussion on doing this automatically, or making 
>> kswapd more efficient to it, and I'd love to do that. Beyond making 
>> kswapd psychic I haven't seen any better options yet.
>>
>> The issue is more complex than simply having an application warn of 
>> an impending allocation, since this can happen via read load on disk 
>> or from kernel page allocations for the network, or a combination of 
>> the two (or three, if you add the app back in).
>>
>> It's going to get worse as we push machines with faster SSD's and 
>> bigger networks. I'm open to any ideas on how to make kswapd more 
>> efficient in our case, or really anything at all that works.
>>
>> I have more details, but cut it down as much as I could for this mail.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Dormando
>> --
>> 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/
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body 
> to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=ilto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>