[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <B26ADCE5-796F-46C6-8445-2D877B881B58@lca.pw>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 07:51:37 -0400
From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, andi.kleen@...el.com,
tim.c.chen@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] mm/util.c: remove the VM_WARN_ONCE for vm_committed_as underflow check
> On Jun 3, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> This check was added by 82f71ae4a2b8 ("mm: catch memory commitment underflow")
> in 2014 to have a safety check for issues which have been fixed.
> And there has been few report caught by it, as described in its
> commit log:
>
> : This shouldn't happen any more - the previous two patches fixed
> : the committed_as underflow issues.
>
> But it was really found by Qian Cai when he used the LTP memory
> stress suite to test a RFC patchset, which tries to improve scalability
> of per-cpu counter 'vm_committed_as', by chosing a bigger 'batch' number
> for loose overcommit policies (OVERCOMMIT_ALWAYS and OVERCOMMIT_GUESS),
> while keeping current number for OVERCOMMIT_NEVER.
>
> With that patchset, when system firstly uses a loose policy, the
> 'vm_committed_as' count could be a big negative value, as its big 'batch'
> number allows a big deviation, then when the policy is changed to
> OVERCOMMIT_NEVER, the 'batch' will be decreased to a much smaller value,
> thus hits this WARN check.
>
> To mitigate this, one proposed solution is to queue work on all online
> CPUs to do a local sync for 'vm_committed_as' when changing policy to
> OVERCOMMIT_NEVER, plus some global syncing to garante the case won't
> be hit.
>
> But this solution is costy and slow, given this check hasn't shown real
> trouble or benefit, simply drop it from one hot path of MM. And perf
> stats does show some tiny saving for removing it.
The text looks more reasonable than the previous one.
Reviewed-by: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists