[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE8gLhkH4W6ZvMMCe7s-nTdGQBHg1HOj_jsfZWHimH6ZXzGWQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:00:00 +0100
From: MegaBrutal <megabrutal@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Stable tree <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Trevor Cordes <trevor@...nopolis.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable-4.9 2/2] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count
Hi Michal,
I'm over a very long kernel bisection, and if I made no mistake in
testing commits, this patch fixes a kernel bug which affects my HP
Compaq dc5800 machine with 32 bit Ubuntu OS.
The bug manifests itself with "NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0
stuck for 23s! [kswapd0:38]" messages in 4.8 kernels, and "page
allocation stalls for 47608ms, order:1,
mode:0x17000c0(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT|__GFP_NOTRACK)" in 4.10 kernels up
to this commit.
Michal, can you confirm that this patch may fix issues like the ones I
encountered? If so, I'll try to get the Ubuntu kernel staff to
backport this commit to Yakkety's 4.8 kernel. On the other hand, I
can't seem to be able to backport this commit to 4.8 with "git
cherry-pick", so maybe I need to wait for your tweaks you mentioned.
Anyway, thank you very much for the fix!
Regards,
MegaBrutal
2017-02-28 16:11 GMT+01:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>:
>
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
> commit 71ab6cfe88dcf9f6e6a65eb85cf2bda20a257682 upstream.
>
> get_scan_count() considers the whole node LRU size when
>
> - doing SCAN_FILE due to many page cache inactive pages
> - calculating the number of pages to scan
>
> In both cases this might lead to unexpected behavior especially on 32b
> systems where we can expect lowmem memory pressure very often.
>
> A large highmem zone can easily distort SCAN_FILE heuristic because
> there might be only few file pages from the eligible zones on the node
> lru and we would still enforce file lru scanning which can lead to
> trashing while we could still scan anonymous pages.
>
> The later use of lruvec_lru_size can be problematic as well. Especially
> when there are not many pages from the eligible zones. We would have to
> skip over many pages to find anything to reclaim but shrink_node_memcg
> would only reduce the remaining number to scan by SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX at
> maximum. Therefore we can end up going over a large LRU many times
> without actually having chance to reclaim much if anything at all. The
> closer we are out of memory on lowmem zone the worse the problem will
> be.
>
> Fix this by filtering out all the ineligible zones when calculating the
> lru size for both paths and consider only sc->reclaim_idx zones.
>
> The patch would need to be tweaked a bit to apply to 4.10 and older but
> I will do that as soon as it hits the Linus tree in the next merge
> window.
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170117103702.28542-3-mhocko@kernel.org
> Fixes: b2e18757f2c9 ("mm, vmscan: begin reclaiming pages on a per-node basis")
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Tested-by: Trevor Cordes <trevor@...nopolis.ca>
> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> [4.8+]
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index cd516c632e8f..30a88b945a44 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2205,7 +2205,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> * system is under heavy pressure.
> */
> if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, true, sc) &&
> - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) >> sc->priority) {
> + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, sc->reclaim_idx) >> sc->priority) {
> scan_balance = SCAN_FILE;
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -2272,7 +2272,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> unsigned long size;
> unsigned long scan;
>
> - size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, MAX_NR_ZONES);
> + size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
> scan = size >> sc->priority;
>
> if (!scan && pass && force_scan)
> --
> 2.11.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists