linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/3] mm: throttle on IO only when there are too many dirty and writeback pages

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <563304B8.6040703@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:48:40 +0900
From:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] mm: throttle on IO only when there are too many dirty
 and writeback pages

On 2015/10/30 0:17, mhocko@...nel.org wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> wait_iff_congested has been used to throttle allocator before it retried
> another round of direct reclaim to allow the writeback to make some
> progress and prevent reclaim from looping over dirty/writeback pages
> without making any progress. We used to do congestion_wait before
> 0e093d99763e ("writeback: do not sleep on the congestion queue if
> there are no congested BDIs or if significant congestion is not being
> encountered in the current zone") but that led to undesirable stalls
> and sleeping for the full timeout even when the BDI wasn't congested.
> Hence wait_iff_congested was used instead. But it seems that even
> wait_iff_congested doesn't work as expected. We might have a small file
> LRU list with all pages dirty/writeback and yet the bdi is not congested
> so this is just a cond_resched in the end and can end up triggering pre
> mature OOM.
> 
> This patch replaces the unconditional wait_iff_congested by
> congestion_wait which is executed only if we _know_ that the last round
> of direct reclaim didn't make any progress and dirty+writeback pages are
> more than a half of the reclaimable pages on the zone which might be
> usable for our target allocation. This shouldn't reintroduce stalls
> fixed by 0e093d99763e because congestion_wait is called only when we
> are getting hopeless when sleeping is a better choice than OOM with many
> pages under IO.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> ---
>   mm/page_alloc.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 9c0abb75ad53..0518ca6a9776 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3191,8 +3191,23 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>   		 */
>   		if (__zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, min_wmark_pages(zone),
>   				ac->high_zoneidx, alloc_flags, target)) {
> -			/* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
> -			wait_iff_congested(zone, BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> +			unsigned long writeback = zone_page_state(zone, NR_WRITEBACK),
> +				      dirty = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> +
> +			if (did_some_progress)
> +				goto retry;
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * If we didn't make any progress and have a lot of
> +			 * dirty + writeback pages then we should wait for
> +			 * an IO to complete to slow down the reclaim and
> +			 * prevent from pre mature OOM
> +			 */
> +			if (2*(writeback + dirty) > reclaimable)

Doesn't this add unnecessary latency if other zones have enough clean memory ?


Thanks,
-Kame
 


--
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/