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  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, 24 Jan 2017 17:54:12 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
        zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@...cle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mm, vmscan: limit kswapd loop if no progress is
 made

On Tue 24-01-17 15:49:03, Jia He wrote:
> Currently there is no hard limitation for kswapd retry times if no progress
> is made. 

Yes, because the main objective of the kswapd is to balance all memory
zones. So having a hard limit on retries doesn't make any sense.

> Then kswapd will take 100% for a long time.

Where it is spending time?

> In my test, I tried to allocate 4000 hugepages by:
> echo 4000 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
> 
> Then,kswapd will take 100% cpu for a long time.
> 
> The numa layout is:
> available: 7 nodes (0-6)
> node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> node 0 size: 6611 MB
> node 0 free: 1103 MB
> node 1 cpus:
> node 1 size: 12527 MB
> node 1 free: 8477 MB
> node 2 cpus:
> node 2 size: 15087 MB
> node 2 free: 11037 MB
> node 3 cpus:
> node 3 size: 16111 MB
> node 3 free: 12060 MB
> node 4 cpus: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
> node 4 size: 24815 MB
> node 4 free: 20704 MB
> node 5 cpus:
> node 5 size: 4095 MB
> node 5 free: 61 MB 
> node 6 cpus:
> node 6 size: 22750 MB
> node 6 free: 18716 MB
> 
> The cause is kswapd will loop for long time even if there is no progress in
> balance_pgdat.

How does this solve anything? If the kswapd just backs off then the more
work has to be done in the direct reclaim context.

> Signed-off-by: Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 532a2a7..7396a0a 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@
>  #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>  #include <trace/events/vmscan.h>
>  
> +#define MAX_KSWAPD_RECLAIM_RETRIES 16
>  struct scan_control {
>  	/* How many pages shrink_list() should reclaim */
>  	unsigned long nr_to_reclaim;
> @@ -3202,7 +3203,8 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat,
>   * or lower is eligible for reclaim until at least one usable zone is
>   * balanced.
>   */
> -static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int classzone_idx)
> +static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int classzone_idx,
> +						 int *did_some_progress)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	unsigned long nr_soft_reclaimed;
> @@ -3322,6 +3324,7 @@ static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int classzone_idx)
>  	 * entered the allocator slow path while kswapd was awake, order will
>  	 * remain at the higher level.
>  	 */
> +	*did_some_progress = !!(sc.nr_scanned || sc.nr_reclaimed);
>  	return sc.order;
>  }
>  
> @@ -3417,6 +3420,8 @@ static int kswapd(void *p)
>  	unsigned int alloc_order, reclaim_order, classzone_idx;
>  	pg_data_t *pgdat = (pg_data_t*)p;
>  	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> +	int no_progress_loops = 0;
> +	int did_some_progress = 0;
>  
>  	struct reclaim_state reclaim_state = {
>  		.reclaimed_slab = 0,
> @@ -3480,9 +3485,23 @@ static int kswapd(void *p)
>  		 */
>  		trace_mm_vmscan_kswapd_wake(pgdat->node_id, classzone_idx,
>  						alloc_order);
> -		reclaim_order = balance_pgdat(pgdat, alloc_order, classzone_idx);
> -		if (reclaim_order < alloc_order)
> +		reclaim_order = balance_pgdat(pgdat, alloc_order, classzone_idx,
> +						&did_some_progress);
> +
> +		if (reclaim_order < alloc_order) {
> +			no_progress_loops = 0;
>  			goto kswapd_try_sleep;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (did_some_progress)
> +			no_progress_loops = 0;
> +		else
> +			no_progress_loops++;
> +
> +		if (no_progress_loops >= MAX_KSWAPD_RECLAIM_RETRIES) {
> +			no_progress_loops = 0;
> +			goto kswapd_try_sleep;
> +		}
>  
>  		alloc_order = reclaim_order = pgdat->kswapd_order;
>  		classzone_idx = pgdat->kswapd_classzone_idx;
> -- 
> 2.5.5
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists