Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 02:03:59 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re:
 [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>:
> On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>:
>> > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >> Andrew,
>> >> could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a
>> >> real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to
>> >> reproduce the issue but the patch should help to some degree at least.
>> >
>> > Joonsoo wasn't very happy about this approach so let me try a different
>> > way. What do you think about the following? Hugh, Sergey does it help
>>
>> I'm still not happy. Just ensuring one compaction run doesn't mean our
>> best.
>
> OK, let me think about it some more.
>
>> What's your purpose of OOM rework? From my understanding,
>> you'd like to trigger OOM kill deterministic and *not prematurely*.
>> This makes sense.
>
> Well this is a bit awkward because we do not have any proper definition
> of what prematurely actually means. We do not know whether something

If we don't have proper definition to it, please define it first. We
need to improve
the situation toward the clear goal. Just certain number of retry which has no
base doesn't make any sense.

> changes and decides to free some memory right after we made the decision.
> We also do not know whether reclaiming some more memory would help
> because we might be trashing over few remaining pages so there would be
> still some progress, albeit small, progress. The system would be
> basically unusable and the OOM killer would be a large relief. What I
> want to achieve is to have a clear definition of _when_ we fire and do

If we have no clear definition about premature, what's the meaning of
a clear definition of _when_? It would just mean random time.

> not fire _often_ to be impractical. There are loads where the new
> implementation behaved slightly better (see the cover for my tests) and
> there surely be some where this will be worse. I want this to be
> reasonably good. I am not claiming we are there yet and the interaction
> with the compaction seems like it needs some work, no question about
> that.
>
>> But, what you did in case of high order allocation is completely different
>> with original purpose. It may be deterministic but *completely premature*.
>> There is no way to prevent premature OOM kill. So, I want to ask one more
>> time. Why OOM kill is better than retry reclaiming when there is reclaimable
>> page? Deterministic is for what? It ensures something more?
>
> yes, If we keep reclaiming we can soon start trashing or over reclaim
> too much which would hurt more processes. If you invoke the OOM killer
> instead then chances are that you will release a lot of memory at once
> and that would help to reconcile the memory pressure as well as free
> some page blocks which couldn't have been compacted before and not
> affect potentially many processes. The effect would be reduced to a
> single process. If we had a proper trashing detection feedback we could
> do much more clever decisions of course.

It looks like you did it for performance reason. You'd better think again about
effect of OOM kill. We don't have enough knowledge about user space program
architecture and killing one important process could lead to whole
system unusable. Moreover, OOM kill could cause important data loss so
should be avoided as much as possible. Performance reason cannot
justify OOM kill.

>
> But back to the !costly OOMs. Once your system is fragmented so heavily
> that there are no free blocks that would satisfy !costly request then
> something has gone terribly wrong and we should fix it. To me it sounds
> like we do not care about those requests early enough and only start
> carying after we hit the wall. Maybe kcompactd can help us in this
> regards.

Yes, but, it's another issue. In any situation, !costly OOM should not happen
prematurely.

>> Please see Hugh's latest vmstat. There are plenty of anon pages when
>> OOM kill happens and it may have enough swap space. Even if
>> compaction runs and fails, why do we need to kill something
>> in this case? OOM kill should be a last resort.
>
> Well this would be the case even if we were trashing over swap.
> Refaulting the swapped out memory all over again...

If thrashing is a main obstacle to decide proper OOM point,
we need to invent a way to handle thrashing or invent reasonable metric
which isn't affected by thrashing.

>> Please see Hugh's previous report and OOM dump.
>>
>> [  796.540791] Mem-Info:
>> [  796.557378] active_anon:150198 inactive_anon:46022 isolated_anon:32
>>  active_file:5107 inactive_file:1664 isolated_file:57
>>  unevictable:3067 dirty:4 writeback:75 unstable:0
>>  slab_reclaimable:13907 slab_unreclaimable:23236
>>  mapped:8889 shmem:3171 pagetables:2176 bounce:0
>>  free:1637 free_pcp:54 free_cma:0
>> [  796.630465] Node 0 DMA32 free:13904kB min:3940kB low:4944kB
>> high:5948kB active_anon:588776kB inactive_anon:188816kB
>> active_file:20432kB inactive_file:6928kB unevictable:12268kB
>> isolated(anon):128kB isolated(file):8kB present:1046128kB
>> managed:1004892kB mlocked:12268kB dirty:16kB writeback:1400kB
>> mapped:35556kB shmem:12684kB slab_reclaimable:55628kB
>> slab_unreclaimable:92944kB kernel_stack:4448kB pagetables:8604kB
>> unstable:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:296kB local_pcp:164kB free_cma:0kB
>> writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
>> [  796.685815] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
>> [  796.687390] Node 0 DMA32: 969*4kB (UE) 184*8kB (UME) 167*16kB (UM)
>> 19*32kB (UM) 3*64kB (UM) 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB
>> 0*4096kB = 8820kB
>> [  796.729696] Node 0 hugepages_total=0 hugepages_free=0
>> hugepages_surp=0 hugepages_size=2048kB
>>
>> See [  796.557378] and [  796.630465].
>> In this 100 ms time interval, freepage increase a lot and
>> there are enough high order pages. OOM kill happen later
>> so freepage would come from reclaim. This shows
>> that your previous implementation which uses static retry number
>> causes premature OOM.
>
> Or simply one of the gcc simply exitted and freed up a memory which is

It doesn't matter where free memory comes from. If free memory increases
due to gcc exit, it implies that we can reclaim some memory from it. There is
no reason to trigger OOM in this case.

> more likely. As I've tried to explain in other email, we cannot prevent
> from those races. We simply do not have a crystal ball. All we know is
> that at the time we checked the watermarks the last time there were
> simply no eligible high order pages available.
>
>> This attempt using compaction result looks not different to me.
>> It would also cause premature OOM kill.
>>
>> I don't insist endless retry. I just want a more scientific criteria
>> that prevents premature OOM kill.
>
> That is exactly what I try to achive here. Right now we are relying on
> zone_reclaimable heuristic. That relies that some pages are freed (and
> reset NR_PAGES_SCANNED) while we are scanning. With a stream of order-0
> pages this is basically unbounded. What I am trying to achieve here
> is to base the decision on the feedback. The first attempt was to use
> the reclaim feedback. This turned out to be not sufficient for higher
> orders because compaction can deffer and skip if we are close to
> watermarks which is really surprising to me. So now I've tried to make
> sure that we do not hit this path. I agree we can do better but there
> always will be a moment to simply give up. Whatever that moment will
> be we can still find loads which could theoretically go on for little
> more and survive.

Problem is that, to me, current implementation looks really simple
give up. Maybe, precise definition about premature would be helpful here.
Without it, it would be just subjective.

>
>> I'm really tire to say same thing again and again.
>> Am I missing something? This is the situation that I totally misunderstand
>> something? Please let me know.
>>
>> Note: your current implementation doesn't consider which zone is compacted.
>> If DMA zone which easily fail to make high order page is compacted,
>> your implementation will not do retry. It also looks not our best.
>
> Why are we even consider DMA zone when we cannot ever allocate from this
> zone?

This is just an example. It could be ZONE_NORMAL and something else. If
we don't try all zones to compact, it's reasonable point to trigger OOM?

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists