Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 17:12:27 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Skip opportunistic reclaim for dma pinned pages

On Thu 25-06-20 12:00:47, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Michal Hocko (2020-06-25 08:57:25)
> > On Wed 24-06-20 20:14:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > A general rule of thumb is that shrinkers should be fast and effective.
> > > They are called from direct reclaim at the most incovenient of times when
> > > the caller is waiting for a page. If we attempt to reclaim a page being
> > > pinned for active dma [pin_user_pages()], we will incur far greater
> > > latency than a normal anonymous page mapped multiple times. Worse the
> > > page may be in use indefinitely by the HW and unable to be reclaimed
> > > in a timely manner.
> > > 
> > > A side effect of the LRU shrinker not being dma aware is that we will
> > > often attempt to perform direct reclaim on the persistent group of dma
> > > pages while continuing to use the dma HW (an issue as the HW may already
> > > be actively waiting for the next user request), and even attempt to
> > > reclaim a partially allocated dma object in order to satisfy pinning
> > > the next user page for that object.
> > 
> > You are talking about direct reclaim but this path is shared with the
> > background reclaim. This is a bit confusing. Maybe you just want to
> > outline the latency in the reclaim which is more noticeable in the
> > direct reclaim to the userspace. This would be good to be clarified.
> > 
> > How much memory are we talking about here btw?
> 
> It depends. In theory, it is used sparingly. But it is under userspace
> control, exposed via Vulkan, OpenGL, OpenCL, media and even old XShm. If
> all goes to plan the application memory is only pinned for as long as the
> HW is using it, but that is an indefinite period of time and an indefinite
> amount of memory. There are provisions in place to impose upper limits
> on how long an operation can last on the HW, and the mmu-notifier is
> there to ensure we do unpin the memory on demand. However cancelling a
> HW operation (which will result in data loss and often process
> termination due to an unfortunate sequence of events when userspace
> fails to recover) for a try_to_unmap on behalf of the LRU shrinker is not
> a good choice.

OK, thanks for the clarification. What and when should MM intervene to
prevent potential OOM?
  
[...]
> > Btw. overall intention of the patch is not really clear to me. Do I get
> > it right that this is going to reduce latency of the reclaim for pages
> > that are not reclaimable anyway because they are pinned? If yes do we
> > have any numbers for that.
> 
> I can plug it into a microbenchmark ala cycletest to show the impact...
> Memory filled with 64M gup objects, random utilisation of those with
> the GPU; background process filling the pagecache with find /; reporting
> the time difference from the expected expiry of a timer with the actual:
> [On a Geminilake Atom-class processor with 8GiB, average of 5 runs, each
> measuring mean latency for 20s -- mean is probably a really bad choice
> here, we need 50/90/95/99]
> 
> direct reclaim calling mmu-notifier:
> gem_syslatency: cycles=2122, latency mean=1601.185us max=33572us
> 
> skipping try_to_unmap_one with page_maybe_dma_pinned:
> gem_syslatency: cycles=1965, latency mean=597.971us max=28462us
> 
> Baseline (background find /; application touched all memory, but no HW
> ops)
> gem_syslatency: cycles=0, latency mean=6.695us max=77us
> 
> Compare with the time to allocate a single THP against load:
> 
> Baseline:
> gem_syslatency: cycles=0, latency mean=1541.562us max=52196us
> Direct reclaim calling mmu-notifier:
> gem_syslatency: cycles=2115, latency mean=9050.930us max=396986us
> page_maybe_dma_pinned skip:
> gem_syslatency: cycles=2325, latency mean=7431.633us max=187960us
> 
> Take with a massive pinch of salt. I expect, once I find the right
> sequence, to reliably control the induced latency on the RT thread.
> 
> But first, I have to look at why there's a correlation with HW load and
> timer latency, even with steady state usage. That's quite surprising --
> ah, I had it left to PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and this machine has to scan
> every request submitted to HW. Just great.
> 
> With PREEMPT:
> Timer:
> Base:    gem_syslatency: cycles=0, latency mean=8.823us max=83us
> Reclaim: gem_syslatency: cycles=2224, latency mean=79.308us max=4805us
> Skip:    gem_syslatency: cycles=2677, latency mean=70.306us max=4720us
> 
> THP:
> Base:    gem_syslatency: cycles=0, latency mean=1993.693us max=201958us
> Reclaim: gem_syslatency: cycles=1284, latency mean=2873.633us max=295962us
> Skip:    gem_syslatency: cycles=1809, latency mean=1991.509us max=261050us
> 
> Earlier caveats notwithstanding; confidence in results still low.
> 
> And refine the testing somewhat, if at the very least gather enough
> samples for credible statistics.

OK, so my understanding is that the overall impact is very low. So what
is the primary motivation for the patch? Prevent from a pointless work -
aka invoke the notifier?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists