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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 11:16:50 +0800
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        william.kucharski@...cle.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: vmscan: correct nr_reclaimed for THP



On 5/20/19 5:43 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
> On 5/16/19 11:10 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:44:35PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> On 5/13/19 11:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Mon 13-05-19 21:36:59, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:45 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon 13-05-19 14:09:59, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I think we can just account 512 base pages for nr_scanned for
>>>>>>> isolate_lru_pages() to make the counters sane since 
>>>>>>> PGSCAN_KSWAPD/DIRECT
>>>>>>> just use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, sc->nr_scanned should be accounted as 512 base pages too 
>>>>>>> otherwise we
>>>>>>> may have nr_scanned < nr_to_reclaim all the time to result in 
>>>>>>> false-negative
>>>>>>> for priority raise and something else wrong (e.g. wrong 
>>>>>>> vmpressure).
>>>>>> Be careful. nr_scanned is used as a pressure indicator to slab 
>>>>>> shrinking
>>>>>> AFAIR. Maybe this is ok but it really begs for much more explaining
>>>>> I don't know why my company mailbox didn't receive this email, so I
>>>>> replied with my personal email.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not used to double slab pressure any more since commit
>>>>> 9092c71bb724 ("mm: use sc->priority for slab shrink targets"). It 
>>>>> uses
>>>>> sc->priority to determine the pressure for slab shrinking now.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I think we can just remove that "double slab pressure" code. 
>>>>> It is
>>>>> not used actually and looks confusing now. Actually, the "double slab
>>>>> pressure" does something opposite. The extra inc to sc->nr_scanned
>>>>> just prevents from raising sc->priority.
>>>> I have to get in sync with the recent changes. I am aware there were
>>>> some patches floating around but I didn't get to review them. I was
>>>> trying to point out that nr_scanned used to have a side effect to be
>>>> careful about. If it doesn't have anymore then this is getting much 
>>>> more
>>>> easier of course. Please document everything in the changelog.
>>> Thanks for reminding. Yes, I remembered nr_scanned would double slab
>>> pressure. But, when I inspected into the code yesterday, it turns 
>>> out it is
>>> not true anymore. I will run some test to make sure it doesn't 
>>> introduce
>>> regression.
>> Yeah, sc->nr_scanned is used for three things right now:
>>
>> 1. vmpressure - this looks at the scanned/reclaimed ratio so it won't
>> change semantics as long as scanned & reclaimed are fixed in parallel
>>
>> 2. compaction/reclaim - this is broken. Compaction wants a certain
>> number of physical pages freed up before going back to compacting.
>> Without Yang Shi's fix, we can overreclaim by a factor of 512.
>>
>> 3. kswapd priority raising - this is broken. kswapd raises priority if
>> we scan fewer pages than the reclaim target (which itself is obviously
>> expressed in order-0 pages). As a result, kswapd can falsely raise its
>> aggressiveness even when it's making great progress.
>>
>> Both sc->nr_scanned & sc->nr_reclaimed should be fixed.
>
> Yes, v3 patch (sit in my local repo now) did fix both.
>
>>
>>> BTW, I noticed the counter of memory reclaim is not correct with THP 
>>> swap on
>>> vanilla kernel, please see the below:
>>>
>>> pgsteal_kswapd 21435
>>> pgsteal_direct 26573329
>>> pgscan_kswapd 3514
>>> pgscan_direct 14417775
>>>
>>> pgsteal is always greater than pgscan, my patch could fix the problem.
>> Ouch, how is that possible with the current code?
>>
>> I think it happens when isolate_lru_pages() counts 1 nr_scanned for a
>> THP, then shrink_page_list() splits the THP and we reclaim tail pages
>> one by one. This goes all the way back to the initial THP patch!
>
> I think so. It does make sense. But, the weird thing is I just see 
> this with synchronous swap device (some THPs got swapped out in a 
> whole, some got split), but I've never seen this with rotate swap 
> device (all THPs got split).
>
> I haven't figured out why.
>
>>
>> isolate_lru_pages() needs to be fixed. Its return value, nr_taken, is
>> correct, but its *nr_scanned parameter is wrong, which causes issues:
>>
>> 1. The trace point, as Yang Shi pointed out, will underreport the
>> number of pages scanned, as it reports it along with nr_to_scan (base
>> pages) and nr_taken (base pages)
>>
>> 2. vmstat and memory.stat count 'struct page' operations rather than
>> base pages, which makes zero sense to neither user nor kernel
>> developers (I routinely multiply these counters by 4096 to get a sense
>> of work performed).
>>
>> All of isolate_lru_pages()'s accounting should be in base pages, which
>> includes nr_scanned and PGSCAN_SKIPPED.
>>
>> That should also simplify the code; e.g.:
>>
>>     for (total_scan = 0;
>>          scan < nr_to_scan && nr_taken < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src);
>>          total_scan++) {
>>
>> scan < nr_to_scan && nr_taken >= nr_to_scan is a weird condition that
>> does not make sense in page reclaim imo. Reclaim cares about physical
>> memory - freeing one THP is as much progress for reclaim as freeing
>> 512 order-0 pages.
>
> Yes, I do agree. The v3 patch did this.
>
>>
>> IMO *all* '++' in vmscan.c are suspicious and should be reviewed:
>> nr_scanned, nr_reclaimed, nr_dirty, nr_unqueued_dirty, nr_congested,
>> nr_immediate, nr_writeback, nr_ref_keep, nr_unmap_fail, pgactivate,
>> total_scan & scan, nr_skipped.
>
> Some of them should be fine but I'm not sure the side effect. IMHO, 
> let's fix the most obvious problem first.

A quick review shows we should correct nr_scanned, nr_reclaimed, 
pgactivate, nr_skipped, nr_ref_keep and nr_unmap_fail since they are 
user visible (via cgroup, /proc/vmstat or trace point) and the wrong 
number may confuse and mislead the users.

nr_dirty, nr_unqueued_dirty, nr_congested and nr_writeback are used by 
file cache, so they are not impacted by THP swap.

>
>>
>> Yang Shi, it would be nice if you could convert all of these to base
>> page accounting in one patch, as it's a single logical fix for the
>> initial introduction of THP that had huge pages show up on the LRUs.\
>
> Yes, sure.
>
>>
>> [ check_move_unevictable_pages() seems weird. It gets a pagevec from
>>    find_get_entries(), which, if I understand the THP page cache code
>>    correctly, might contain the same compound page over and over. It'll
>>    be !unevictable after the first iteration, so will only run once. So
>>    it produces incorrect numbers now, but it is probably best to ignore
>>    it until we figure out THP cache. Maybe add an XXX comment. ]
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists