Message-ID: <20140519232215.GB21636@bbox>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 08:22:15 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] CMA: aggressively allocate the pages on cma
 reserved memory when not used

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:45:31AM +0900, Heesub Shin wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 05/15/2014 10:53 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:00:57PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>Hey Joonsoo,
> >>
> >>On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:32:23AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>>CMA is introduced to provide physically contiguous pages at runtime.
> >>>For this purpose, it reserves memory at boot time. Although it reserve
> >>>memory, this reserved memory can be used for movable memory allocation
> >>>request. This usecase is beneficial to the system that needs this CMA
> >>>reserved memory infrequently and it is one of main purpose of
> >>>introducing CMA.
> >>>
> >>>But, there is a problem in current implementation. The problem is that
> >>>it works like as just reserved memory approach. The pages on cma reserved
> >>>memory are hardly used for movable memory allocation. This is caused by
> >>>combination of allocation and reclaim policy.
> >>>
> >>>The pages on cma reserved memory are allocated if there is no movable
> >>>memory, that is, as fallback allocation. So the time this fallback
> >>>allocation is started is under heavy memory pressure. Although it is under
> >>>memory pressure, movable allocation easily succeed, since there would be
> >>>many pages on cma reserved memory. But this is not the case for unmovable
> >>>and reclaimable allocation, because they can't use the pages on cma
> >>>reserved memory. These allocations regard system's free memory as
> >>>(free pages - free cma pages) on watermark checking, that is, free
> >>>unmovable pages + free reclaimable pages + free movable pages. Because
> >>>we already exhausted movable pages, only free pages we have are unmovable
> >>>and reclaimable types and this would be really small amount. So watermark
> >>>checking would be failed. It will wake up kswapd to make enough free
> >>>memory for unmovable and reclaimable allocation and kswapd will do.
> >>>So before we fully utilize pages on cma reserved memory, kswapd start to
> >>>reclaim memory and try to make free memory over the high watermark. This
> >>>watermark checking by kswapd doesn't take care free cma pages so many
> >>>movable pages would be reclaimed. After then, we have a lot of movable
> >>>pages again, so fallback allocation doesn't happen again. To conclude,
> >>>amount of free memory on meminfo which includes free CMA pages is moving
> >>>around 512 MB if I reserve 512 MB memory for CMA.
> >>>
> >>>I found this problem on following experiment.
> >>>
> >>>4 CPUs, 1024 MB, VIRTUAL MACHINE
> >>>make -j24
> >>>
> >>>CMA reserve:		0 MB		512 MB
> >>>Elapsed-time:		234.8		361.8
> >>>Average-MemFree:	283880 KB	530851 KB
> >>>
> >>>To solve this problem, I can think following 2 possible solutions.
> >>>1. allocate the pages on cma reserved memory first, and if they are
> >>>    exhausted, allocate movable pages.
> >>>2. interleaved allocation: try to allocate specific amounts of memory
> >>>    from cma reserved memory and then allocate from free movable memory.
> >>
> >>I love this idea but when I see the code, I don't like that.
> >>In allocation path, just try to allocate pages by round-robin so it's role
> >>of allocator. If one of migratetype is full, just pass mission to reclaimer
> >>with hint(ie, Hey reclaimer, it's non-movable allocation fail
> >>so there is pointless if you reclaim MIGRATE_CMA pages) so that
> >>reclaimer can filter it out during page scanning.
> >>We already have an tool to achieve it(ie, isolate_mode_t).
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >I agree with leaving fast allocation path as simple as possible.
> >I will remove runtime computation for determining ratio in
> >__rmqueue_cma() and, instead, will use pre-computed value calculated
> >on the other path.
> >
> >I am not sure that whether your second suggestion(Hey relaimer part)
> >is good or not. In my quick thought, that could be helpful in the
> >situation that many free cma pages remained. But, it would be not helpful
> >when there are neither free movable and cma pages. In generally, most
> >workloads mainly uses movable pages for page cache or anonymous mapping.
> >Although reclaim is triggered by non-movable allocation failure, reclaimed
> >pages are used mostly by movable allocation. We can handle these allocation
> >request even if we reclaim the pages just in lru order. If we rotate
> >the lru list for finding movable pages, it could cause more useful
> >pages to be evicted.
> >
> >This is just my quick thought, so please let me correct if I am wrong.
> 
> We have an out of tree implementation that is completely the same
> with the approach Minchan said and it works, but it has definitely
> some side-effects as you pointed, distorting the LRU and evicting
> hot pages. I do not attach code fragments in this thread for some
> reasons, but it must be easy for yourself. I am wondering if it
> could help also in your case.
> 
> Thanks,
> Heesub

Heesub, To be sure, did you try round-robin allocate like Joonsoo's
approach and happend such LRU churning problem?

-- 
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