[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180306134139.375e15abab173329962f7d5a@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:41:39 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, adobriyan@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] Define killable version for
access_remote_vm() and use it in fs/proc
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:17:37 -0800 Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>
> It just mitigates the hung task warning, can't resolve the mmap_sem
> scalability issue. Furthermore, waiting on pure uninterruptible state
> for reading /proc sounds unnecessary. It doesn't wait for I/O completion.
OK.
> >
> > Where the heck are we holding mmap_sem for so long? Can that be fixed?
>
> The mmap_sem is held for unmapping a large map which has every single
> page mapped. This is not a issue in real production code. Just found it
> by running vm-scalability on a machine with ~600GB memory.
>
> AFAIK, I don't see any easy fix for the mmap_sem scalability issue. I
> saw range locking patches (https://lwn.net/Articles/723648/) were
> floating around. But, it may not help too much on the case that a large
> map with every single page mapped.
Well it sounds fairly simple to mitigate? Simplistically: don't unmap
600G in a single hit; do it 1G at a time, dropping mmap_sem each time.
A smarter version might only come up for air if there are mmap_sem
waiters and if it has already done some work. I don't think we have
any particular atomicity requirements when unmapping?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists