| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:35:17 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Pintu Kumar <pintu.k@...sung.com>,
Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] mm, page_alloc: Reserve pageblocks for high-order
atomic allocations on demand
On 07/20/2015 10:00 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
>
> High-order watermark checking exists for two reasons -- kswapd high-order
> awareness and protection for high-order atomic requests. Historically we
> depended on MIGRATE_RESERVE to preserve min_free_kbytes as high-order free
> pages for as long as possible. This patch introduces MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC
> that reserves pageblocks for high-order atomic allocations. This is expected
> to be more reliable than MIGRATE_RESERVE was.
>
> A MIGRATE_HIGHORDER pageblock is created when an allocation request steals
> a pageblock but limits the total number to 10% of the zone.
This looked weird, until I read the implementation and realized that "an
allocation request" is limited to high-order atomic allocation requests.
> The pageblocks are unreserved if an allocation fails after a direct
> reclaim attempt.
>
> The watermark checks account for the reserved pageblocks when the allocation
> request is not a high-order atomic allocation.
>
> The stutter benchmark was used to evaluate this but while it was running
> there was a systemtap script that randomly allocated between 1 and 1G worth
> of order-3 pages using GFP_ATOMIC. In kernel 4.2-rc1 running this workload
> on a single-node machine there were 339574 allocation failures. With this
> patch applied there were 28798 failures -- a 92% reduction. On a 4-node
> machine, allocation failures went from 76917 to 0 failures.
>
> There are minor theoritical side-effects. If the system is intensively
> making large numbers of long-lived high-order atomic allocations then
> there will be a lot of reserved pageblocks. This may push some workloads
> into reclaim until the number of reserved pageblocks is reduced again. This
> problem was not observed in reclaim intensive workloads but such workloads
> are also not atomic high-order intensive.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
[...]
> +/*
> + * Used when an allocation is about to fail under memory pressure. This
> + * potentially hurts the reliability of high-order allocations when under
> + * intense memory pressure but failed atomic allocations should be easier
> + * to recover from than an OOM.
> + */
> +static void unreserve_highatomic_pageblock(const struct alloc_context *ac)
> +{
> + struct zonelist *zonelist = ac->zonelist;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct zoneref *z;
> + struct zone *zone;
> + struct page *page;
> + int order;
> +
> + for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist, ac->high_zoneidx,
> + ac->nodemask) {
This fixed order might bias some zones over others wrt unreserving. Is it OK?
> + /* Preserve at least one pageblock */
> + if (zone->nr_reserved_highatomic <= pageblock_nr_pages)
> + continue;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> + for (order = 0; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) {
Would it make more sense to look in descending order for a higher chance of
unreserving a pageblock that's mostly free? Like the traditional page stealing does?
> + struct free_area *area = &(zone->free_area[order]);
> +
> + if (list_empty(&area->free_list[MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC]))
> + continue;
> +
> + page = list_entry(area->free_list[MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC].next,
> + struct page, lru);
> +
> + zone->nr_reserved_highatomic -= pageblock_nr_pages;
> + set_pageblock_migratetype(page, ac->migratetype);
Would it make more sense to assume MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE, as high-order allocations
present in the pageblock typically would be, and apply the traditional page
stealing heuristics to decide if it should be changed to ac->migratetype (if
that differs)?
> + move_freepages_block(zone, page, ac->migratetype);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> + return;
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> + }
> +}
> +
> /* Remove an element from the buddy allocator from the fallback list */
> static inline struct page *
> __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int start_migratetype)
> @@ -1619,15 +1689,26 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int start_migratetype)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static inline bool gfp_mask_atomic(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +{
> + return !(gfp_mask & (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_NO_KSWAPD));
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Do the hard work of removing an element from the buddy allocator.
> * Call me with the zone->lock already held.
> */
> static struct page *__rmqueue(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
> - int migratetype)
> + int migratetype, gfp_t gfp_flags)
> {
> struct page *page;
>
> + if (unlikely(order && gfp_mask_atomic(gfp_flags))) {
> + page = __rmqueue_smallest(zone, order, MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC);
> + if (page)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> page = __rmqueue_smallest(zone, order, migratetype);
> if (unlikely(!page)) {
> if (migratetype == MIGRATE_MOVABLE)
> @@ -1637,6 +1718,7 @@ static struct page *__rmqueue(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
> page = __rmqueue_fallback(zone, order, migratetype);
> }
>
> +out:
> trace_mm_page_alloc_zone_locked(page, order, migratetype);
> return page;
> }
> @@ -1654,7 +1736,7 @@ static int rmqueue_bulk(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
>
> spin_lock(&zone->lock);
> for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
> - struct page *page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype);
> + struct page *page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype, 0);
> if (unlikely(page == NULL))
> break;
>
> @@ -2065,7 +2147,7 @@ struct page *buffered_rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone,
> WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
> }
> spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> - page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype);
> + page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype, gfp_flags);
> spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
> if (!page)
> goto failed;
> @@ -2175,15 +2257,23 @@ static bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order,
> unsigned long mark, int classzone_idx, int alloc_flags,
> long free_pages)
> {
> - /* free_pages may go negative - that's OK */
> long min = mark;
> int o;
> long free_cma = 0;
>
> + /* free_pages may go negative - that's OK */
> free_pages -= (1 << order) - 1;
> +
> if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HIGH)
> min -= min / 2;
> - if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER)
> +
> + /*
> + * If the caller is not atomic then discount the reserves. This will
> + * over-estimate how the atomic reserve but it avoids a search
> + */
> + if (likely(!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER)))
> + free_pages -= z->nr_reserved_highatomic;
Hm, so in the case the maximum of 10% reserved blocks is already full, we deny
the allocation access to another 10% of the memory and push it to reclaim. This
seems rather excessive.
Searching would of course suck, as would attempting to replicate the handling of
NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES. Sigh.
> + else
> min -= min / 4;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> @@ -2372,6 +2462,14 @@ try_this_zone:
> if (page) {
> if (prep_new_page(page, order, gfp_mask, alloc_flags))
> goto try_this_zone;
> +
> + /*
> + * If this is a high-order atomic allocation then check
> + * if the pageblock should be reserved for the future
> + */
> + if (unlikely(order && (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HARDER)))
> + reserve_highatomic_pageblock(page, zone, order);
> +
> return page;
> }
> }
> @@ -2639,9 +2737,11 @@ retry:
>
> /*
> * If an allocation failed after direct reclaim, it could be because
> - * pages are pinned on the per-cpu lists. Drain them and try again
> + * pages are pinned on the per-cpu lists or in high alloc reserves.
> + * Shrink them them and try again
> */
> if (!page && !drained) {
> + unreserve_highatomic_pageblock(ac);
> drain_all_pages(NULL);
> drained = true;
> goto retry;
> @@ -2686,7 +2786,7 @@ static inline int
> gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> int alloc_flags = ALLOC_WMARK_MIN | ALLOC_CPUSET;
> - const bool atomic = !(gfp_mask & (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_NO_KSWAPD));
> + const bool atomic = gfp_mask_atomic(gfp_mask);
>
> /* __GFP_HIGH is assumed to be the same as ALLOC_HIGH to save a branch. */
> BUILD_BUG_ON(__GFP_HIGH != (__force gfp_t) ALLOC_HIGH);
> diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
> index 49963aa2dff3..3427a155f85e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmstat.c
> +++ b/mm/vmstat.c
> @@ -901,6 +901,7 @@ static char * const migratetype_names[MIGRATE_TYPES] = {
> "Unmovable",
> "Reclaimable",
> "Movable",
> + "HighAtomic",
> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> "CMA",
> #endif
>
--
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