Date:	Tue, 10 May 2016 15:41:04 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....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>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>:
> On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>:
>> > On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The
>> >> > code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one old standing
>> >> > bug (patch 1) which just got much more severe and visible with this
>> >> > series. Other than that I have reorganized the series and put the
>> >> > compaction feedback abstraction to the front just in case we find out
>> >> > that parts of the series would have to be reverted later on for some
>> >> > reason. The premature oom killer invocation reported by Hugh [2] seems
>> >> > to be addressed.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have discussed this series at LSF/MM summit in Raleigh and there
>> >> > didn't seem to be any concerns/objections to go on with the patch set
>> >> > and target it for the next merge window.
>> >>
>> >> I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with
>> >> !costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh
>> >> and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger compaction. I
>> >> think that these show the problem of this patchset. Previous kernel
>> >> doesn't need to ensure to trigger compaction and just works fine in
>> >> any case. Your series make compaction necessary for all. OOM handling
>> >> is essential part in MM but compaction isn't. OOM handling should not
>> >> depend on compaction. I tested my own benchmark without
>> >> CONFIG_COMPACTION and found that premature OOM happens.
>> >
>> > High order allocations without compaction are basically a lost game. You
>>
>> I don't think that order 1 or 2 allocation has a big trouble without compaction.
>> They can be made by buddy algorithm that keeps high order freepages
>> as long as possible.
>>
>> > can wait unbounded amount of time and still have no guarantee of any
>>
>> I know that it has no guarantee. But, it doesn't mean that it's better to
>> give up early. Since OOM could causes serious problem, if there is
>> reclaimable memory, we need to reclaim all of them at least once
>> with praying for high order page before triggering OOM. Optimizing
>> this situation by incomplete guessing is a dangerous idea.
>>
>> > progress. What is the usual reason to disable compaction in the first
>> > place?
>>
>> I don't disable it. But, who knows who disable compaction? It's been *not*
>> a long time that CONFIG_COMPACTION is default enable. Maybe, 3 years?
>
> I would really like to hear about real life usecase before we go and
> cripple otherwise deterministic algorithms. It might be very well
> possible that those configurations simply do not have problems with high
> order allocations because they are too specific.
>
>> > Anyway if this is _really_ a big issue then we can do something like the
>> > following to emulate the previous behavior. We are losing the
>> > determinism but if you really thing that the !COMPACTION workloads
>> > already reconcile with it I can live with that.
>> > ---
>> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > index 2e7e26c5d3ba..f48b9e9b1869 100644
>> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> > @@ -3319,6 +3319,24 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_fla
>> >                      enum migrate_mode *migrate_mode,
>> >                      int compaction_retries)
>> >  {
>> > +       struct zone *zone;
>> > +       struct zoneref *z;
>> > +
>> > +       if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
>> > +               return false;
>> > +
>> > +       /*
>> > +        * There are setups with compaction disabled which would prefer to loop
>> > +        * inside the allocator rather than hit the oom killer prematurely. Let's
>> > +        * give them a good hope and keep retrying while the order-0 watermarks
>> > +        * are OK.
>> > +        */
>> > +       for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, ac->zonelist, ac->high_zoneidx,
>> > +                                       ac->nodemask) {
>> > +               if(zone_watermark_ok(zone, 0, min_wmark_pages(zone),
>> > +                                       ac->high_zoneidx, alloc_flags))
>> > +                       return true;
>> > +       }
>> >         return false;
>>
>> I hope that this kind of logic is added to should_reclaim_retry() so
>> that this logic is
>> applied in any setup. should_compact_retry() should not become a fundamental
>> criteria to determine OOM. What compaction does can be changed in the future
>> and it's undesirable that it's change affects OOM condition greatly.
>
> I disagree. High order allocations relying on the reclaim is a bad idea
> because there is no guarantee that reclaiming more memory leads to the
> success. This is the whole idea of the oom detection rework. So the
> whole point of should_reclaim_retry is to get over watermarks while
> should_compact_retry is about retrying when high order allocations might
> make a progress. I really hate to tweak this for a configuration which
> relies on the pure luck. So if we really need to do something
> undeterministic then !COMPACTION should_compact_retry is the place where
> it should be done.
>
> If you are able to reproduce pre mature OOMs with !COMPACTION then I
> would really appreciate if you could test with this patch so that I can
> prepare a full patch.

My benchmark is too specific so I make another one. It does very
simple things.

1) Run the system with 256 MB memory and 2 GB swap
2) Run memory-hogger which takes (anonymous memory) 256 MB
3) Make 1000 new processes by fork (It will take 16 MB order-2 pages)

You can do it yourself with above instructions.

On current upstream kernel without CONFIG_COMPACTION, OOM doesn't happen.
On next-20160509 kernel without CONFIG_COMPACTION, OOM happens when
roughly *500* processes forked.

With CONFIG_COMPACTION, OOM doesn't happen on any kernel.

Other kernels doesn't trigger OOM even if I make 10000 new processes.

This example is very intuitive and reasonable. I think that it's not artificial.
It has enough swap space so OOM should not happen.

This failure shows that fundamental assumption of your patch is
wrong. You triggers OOM even if there is enough reclaimable memory but
no high order freepage depending on the fact that we can't guarantee
that we can make high order page with reclaiming these reclaimable
memory. Yes, we can't guarantee it but we also doesn't know if it
can be possible or not. We should not stop reclaim until this
estimation is is proved. Otherwise, it would be premature OOM.

You applied band-aid for CONFIG_COMPACTION and fixed some reported
problem but it is also fragile. Assume almost pageblock's skipbit are
set. In this case, compaction easily returns COMPACT_COMPLETE and your
logic will stop retry. Compaction isn't designed to report accurate
fragmentation state of the system so depending on it's return value
for OOM is fragile.

Please fix your fundamental assumption and don't add band-aid using
compaction.

I said same thing again and again and I can't convince you until now.
I'm not sure what I can do more.

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists