linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:42:08 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, vbabka@...e.cz, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        minchan@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com, zhouxiyu@...wei.com,
        zhangshiming5@...wei.com, won.ho.park@...wei.com,
        tuxiaobing@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall
 into buddy slow path

On Tue 18-10-16 19:08:05, zhouxianrong wrote:
> Call trace:
> [<ffffffc0000863dc>] __switch_to+0x80/0x98
> [<ffffffc001160c58>] __schedule+0x314/0x854
> [<ffffffc0011611e0>] schedule+0x48/0xa4
> [<ffffffc0011648c4>] schedule_timeout+0x158/0x2c8
> [<ffffffc0011608b4>] io_schedule_timeout+0xbc/0x14c
> [<ffffffc0001aec84>] wait_iff_congested+0x1d4/0x1ec
> [<ffffffc0001a36b0>] shrink_inactive_list+0x530/0x760
> [<ffffffc0001a3e14>] shrink_lruvec+0x534/0x76c
> [<ffffffc0001a40d4>] shrink_zone+0x88/0x1b8
> [<ffffffc0001a4444>] do_try_to_free_pages+0x240/0x478
> [<ffffffc0001a4788>] try_to_free_pages+0x10c/0x284
> [<ffffffc0001968a4>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x540/0x918
> [<ffffffc0001dd0e8>] new_slab+0x334/0x4a0
> [<ffffffc0001df37c>] __slab_alloc.isra.75.constprop.77+0x6bc/0x780
> [<ffffffc0001df584>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x144/0x23c
> [<ffffffc00018f040>] mempool_alloc_slab+0x2c/0x38
> [<ffffffc00018f1f4>] mempool_alloc+0x7c/0x188
> [<ffffffc0003f462c>] bio_alloc_bioset+0x1cc/0x254
> [<ffffffc00022a430>] _submit_bh+0x74/0x1c8
> [<ffffffc00022c9d0>] __block_write_full_page.constprop.33+0x1a0/0x40c
> [<ffffffc00022cd1c>] block_write_full_page+0xe0/0x134
> [<ffffffc00022da64>] blkdev_writepage+0x30/0x3c
> [<ffffffc000197d08>] __writepage+0x34/0x74
> [<ffffffc000198880>] write_cache_pages+0x1e8/0x450
> [<ffffffc000198b3c>] generic_writepages+0x54/0x8c
> [<ffffffc00019a990>] do_writepages+0x40/0x6c
> [<ffffffc00021e604>] __writeback_single_inode+0x60/0x51c
> [<ffffffc00021eeec>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x2d4/0x46c
> [<ffffffc00021f128>] __writeback_inodes_wb+0xa4/0xe8
> [<ffffffc00021f480>] wb_writeback+0x314/0x3fc
> [<ffffffc000220224>] bdi_writeback_workfn+0x130/0x4e0
> [<ffffffc0000be4d4>] process_one_work+0x18c/0x51c
> [<ffffffc0000bedd8>] worker_thread+0x15c/0x51c
> [<ffffffc0000c5718>] kthread+0x10c/0x120
> 
> the above calltrace occured when write sdcard under large and long pressure.
> the patch is a performance issue. i hope flusher do not be throttled just here and
> let it reclaim the successive clean file pages or anonymous pages on lru list
> and then return to write left dirty pages of inode. it would speed up write-back
> speed of dirty pages. so other direct reclaimers can reclaim more clean pages.
> in low memory caused by big pagecache bdi writeback speed play a key role.

If we got here then we are hitting into dirty/writeback pages on the
tail of the LRU list and the bdi is congested. So there are no clean
pages most probably and the storage doesn't catch up with that IO.

Why do you think that not throttling would help here? Do you really see
that the further reclaim really makes forward progress or it just wastes
more CPU without doing a useful work?

In other words much more information please!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs