linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mm/vmscan.c: avoid possible long latency caused by too_many

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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e6dc0c7b-47eb-bad6-016b-73642930a68d@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 16:03:06 +0800
From:   Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, yuzhao@...gle.com,
        wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/vmscan.c: avoid possible long latency caused by
 too_many_isolated()

Hi Hillf,

On 4/30/2021 2:43 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:33:57 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
>>
>> I use my compaction test case to test it, 1/10 ratio can reproduce 100ms
>> sleep.
>>
>>   60) @ 103942.6 us |      shrink_node();
>>
>>   60) @ 103795.8 us |      shrink_node();
> 
> Thanks for your test.
> 
> In bid to cut the number of 100ms sleepers further down, add another place
> for them to nap by flushing lru cache before falling in sleep, instead of
> mulling why 50ms or 10ms is more adequate.
> 
> Alternatively, and simpler IMHO, take a 5ms nap one time until !tmi.
> 
> --- y/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ x/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ struct scan_control {
>   	/* The file pages on the current node are dangerously low */
>   	unsigned int file_is_tiny:1;
>   
> +	unsigned int file_tmi:1; /* too many isolated */
> +	unsigned int anon_tmi:1;
> +
>   	/* Allocation order */
>   	s8 order;
>   
> @@ -2092,6 +2095,22 @@ static int current_may_throttle(void)
>   		bdi_write_congested(current->backing_dev_info);
>   }
>   
> +static void set_sc_tmi(struct scan_control *sc, bool file, int tmi)
> +{
> +	if (file)
> +		sc->file_tmi = tmi;
> +	else
> +		sc->anon_tmi = tmi;
> +}
> +
> +static bool is_sc_tmi(struct scan_control *sc, bool file)
> +{
> +	if (file)
> +		return sc->file_tmi != 0;
> +	else
> +		return sc->anon_tmi != 0;
> +}
> +
>   /*
>    * shrink_inactive_list() is a helper for shrink_node().  It returns the number
>    * of reclaimed pages
> @@ -2109,11 +2128,23 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to
>   	enum vm_event_item item;
>   	struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
>   	bool stalled = false;
> +	bool drained = false;
>   
>   	while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(pgdat, file, sc))) {
>   		if (stalled)
>   			return 0;
>   
> +		if (!is_sc_tmi(sc, file)) {
> +			set_sc_tmi(sc, file, 1);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (!drained) {
> +			drained = true;
> +			lru_add_drain_all();
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
>   		/* wait a bit for the reclaimer. */
>   		msleep(100);
>   		stalled = true;
> @@ -2123,6 +2154,9 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to
>   			return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
>   	}
>   
> +	if (is_sc_tmi(sc, file))
> +		set_sc_tmi(sc, file, 0);
> +
>   	lru_add_drain();
>   
>   	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> 

I tried the patch, it still can reproduce the 100ms sleep.

52) @ 103829.8 us |      shrink_lruvec();

-- 
Zhengjun Xing