| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1427087267-16592-19-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:07:47 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, hch@...radead.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
vgoyal@...hat.com, lizefan@...wei.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...e.cz, clm@...com,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, david@...morbit.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Subject: [PATCH 18/18] mm: vmscan: remove memcg stalling on writeback pages during direct reclaim
Because writeback wasn't cgroup aware before, the usual dirty
throttling mechanism in balance_dirty_pages() didn't work for
processes under memcg limit. The writeback path didn't know how much
memory is available or how fast the dirty pages are being written out
for a given memcg and balance_dirty_pages() didn't have any measure of
IO back pressure for the memcg.
To work around the issue, memcg implemented an ad-hoc dirty throttling
mechanism in the direct reclaim path by stalling on pages under
writeback which are encountered during direct reclaim scan. This is
rather ugly and crude - none of the configurability, fairness, or
bandwidth-proportional distribution of the normal path.
The previous patches implemented proper memcg aware dirty throttling
and the ad-hoc mechanism is no longer necessary. Remove it.
Note: I removed the parts which seemed obvious and it behaves fine
while testing but my understanding of this code path is
rudimentary and it's quite possible that I got something wrong.
Please let me know if I got some wrong or more global_reclaim()
sites should be updated.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 9f8d3c0..d084c95 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -929,53 +929,24 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
nr_congested++;
/*
- * If a page at the tail of the LRU is under writeback, there
- * are three cases to consider.
- *
- * 1) If reclaim is encountering an excessive number of pages
- * under writeback and this page is both under writeback and
- * PageReclaim then it indicates that pages are being queued
- * for IO but are being recycled through the LRU before the
- * IO can complete. Waiting on the page itself risks an
- * indefinite stall if it is impossible to writeback the
- * page due to IO error or disconnected storage so instead
- * note that the LRU is being scanned too quickly and the
- * caller can stall after page list has been processed.
- *
- * 2) Global reclaim encounters a page, memcg encounters a
- * page that is not marked for immediate reclaim or
- * the caller does not have __GFP_IO. In this case mark
- * the page for immediate reclaim and continue scanning.
- *
- * __GFP_IO is checked because a loop driver thread might
- * enter reclaim, and deadlock if it waits on a page for
- * which it is needed to do the write (loop masks off
- * __GFP_IO|__GFP_FS for this reason); but more thought
- * would probably show more reasons.
- *
- * Don't require __GFP_FS, since we're not going into the
- * FS, just waiting on its writeback completion. Worryingly,
- * ext4 gfs2 and xfs allocate pages with
- * grab_cache_page_write_begin(,,AOP_FLAG_NOFS), so testing
- * may_enter_fs here is liable to OOM on them.
- *
- * 3) memcg encounters a page that is not already marked
- * PageReclaim. memcg does not have any dirty pages
- * throttling so we could easily OOM just because too many
- * pages are in writeback and there is nothing else to
- * reclaim. Wait for the writeback to complete.
+ * A page at the tail of the LRU is under writeback. If
+ * reclaim is encountering an excessive number of pages
+ * under writeback and this page is both under writeback
+ * and PageReclaim then it indicates that pages are being
+ * queued for IO but are being recycled through the LRU
+ * before the IO can complete. Waiting on the page itself
+ * risks an indefinite stall if it is impossible to
+ * writeback the page due to IO error or disconnected
+ * storage so instead note that the LRU is being scanned
+ * too quickly and the caller can stall after page list has
+ * been processed.
*/
if (PageWriteback(page)) {
- /* Case 1 above */
if (current_is_kswapd() &&
PageReclaim(page) &&
test_bit(ZONE_WRITEBACK, &zone->flags)) {
nr_immediate++;
- goto keep_locked;
-
- /* Case 2 above */
- } else if (global_reclaim(sc) ||
- !PageReclaim(page) || !(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO)) {
+ } else {
/*
* This is slightly racy - end_page_writeback()
* might have just cleared PageReclaim, then
@@ -989,13 +960,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
*/
SetPageReclaim(page);
nr_writeback++;
-
- goto keep_locked;
-
- /* Case 3 above */
- } else {
- wait_on_page_writeback(page);
}
+ goto keep_locked;
}
if (!force_reclaim)
@@ -1423,9 +1389,6 @@ static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file,
if (current_is_kswapd())
return 0;
- if (!global_reclaim(sc))
- return 0;
-
if (file) {
inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
isolated = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE);
@@ -1615,35 +1578,29 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
set_bit(ZONE_WRITEBACK, &zone->flags);
/*
- * memcg will stall in page writeback so only consider forcibly
- * stalling for global reclaim
+ * Tag a zone as congested if all the dirty pages scanned were
+ * backed by a congested BDI and wait_iff_congested will stall.
*/
- if (global_reclaim(sc)) {
- /*
- * Tag a zone as congested if all the dirty pages scanned were
- * backed by a congested BDI and wait_iff_congested will stall.
- */
- if (nr_dirty && nr_dirty == nr_congested)
- set_bit(ZONE_CONGESTED, &zone->flags);
+ if (nr_dirty && nr_dirty == nr_congested)
+ set_bit(ZONE_CONGESTED, &zone->flags);
- /*
- * If dirty pages are scanned that are not queued for IO, it
- * implies that flushers are not keeping up. In this case, flag
- * the zone ZONE_DIRTY and kswapd will start writing pages from
- * reclaim context.
- */
- if (nr_unqueued_dirty == nr_taken)
- set_bit(ZONE_DIRTY, &zone->flags);
+ /*
+ * If dirty pages are scanned that are not queued for IO, it
+ * implies that flushers are not keeping up. In this case, flag the
+ * zone ZONE_DIRTY and kswapd will start writing pages from reclaim
+ * context.
+ */
+ if (nr_unqueued_dirty == nr_taken)
+ set_bit(ZONE_DIRTY, &zone->flags);
- /*
- * If kswapd scans pages marked marked for immediate
- * reclaim and under writeback (nr_immediate), it implies
- * that pages are cycling through the LRU faster than
- * they are written so also forcibly stall.
- */
- if (nr_immediate && current_may_throttle())
- congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
- }
+ /*
+ * If kswapd scans pages marked marked for immediate reclaim and
+ * under writeback (nr_immediate), it implies that pages are
+ * cycling through the LRU faster than they are written so also
+ * forcibly stall.
+ */
+ if (nr_immediate && current_may_throttle())
+ congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
/*
* Stall direct reclaim for IO completions if underlying BDIs or zone
--
2.1.0
--
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