linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: count time in drain_all_pages during direct reclaim as memory pressure

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

Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:43:10 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, guro@...com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        minchan@...nel.org, timmurray@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: count time in drain_all_pages during direct
 reclaim as memory pressure

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:40 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> When page allocation in direct reclaim path fails, the system will
> make one attempt to shrink per-cpu page lists and free pages from
> high alloc reserves. Draining per-cpu pages into buddy allocator can
> be a very slow operation because it's done using workqueues and the
> task in direct reclaim waits for all of them to finish before
> proceeding. Currently this time is not accounted as psi memory stall.
>
> While testing mobile devices under extreme memory pressure, when
> allocations are failing during direct reclaim, we notices that psi
> events which would be expected in such conditions were not triggered.
> After profiling these cases it was determined that the reason for
> missing psi events was that a big chunk of time spent in direct
> reclaim is not accounted as memory stall, therefore psi would not
> reach the levels at which an event is generated. Further investigation
> revealed that the bulk of that unaccounted time was spent inside
> drain_all_pages call.
>
> A typical captured case when drain_all_pages path gets activated:
>
> __alloc_pages_slowpath  took 44.644.613ns
>     __perform_reclaim   took    751.668ns (1.7%)
>     drain_all_pages     took 43.887.167ns (98.3%)
>
> PSI in this case records the time spent in __perform_reclaim but
> ignores drain_all_pages, IOW it misses 98.3% of the time spent in
> __alloc_pages_slowpath.
>
> Annotate __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim in its entirety so that delays
> from handling page allocation failure in the direct reclaim path are
> accounted as memory stall.
>
> Reported-by: Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> ---
> changes in v2:
> - Added captured sample case to show the delay numbers, per Michal Hocko
> - Moved annotation from __perform_reclaim into __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim,
> per Minchan Kim
>
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3589febc6d31..2e9fbf28938f 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4595,13 +4595,12 @@ __perform_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>                                         const struct alloc_context *ac)
>  {
>         unsigned int noreclaim_flag;
> -       unsigned long pflags, progress;
> +       unsigned long progress;
>
>         cond_resched();
>
>         /* We now go into synchronous reclaim */
>         cpuset_memory_pressure_bump();
> -       psi_memstall_enter(&pflags);
>         fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_mask);
>         noreclaim_flag = memalloc_noreclaim_save();
>
> @@ -4610,7 +4609,6 @@ __perform_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>
>         memalloc_noreclaim_restore(noreclaim_flag);
>         fs_reclaim_release(gfp_mask);
> -       psi_memstall_leave(&pflags);
>
>         cond_resched();
>
> @@ -4624,11 +4622,13 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>                 unsigned long *did_some_progress)
>  {
>         struct page *page = NULL;
> +       unsigned long pflags;
>         bool drained = false;
>
> +       psi_memstall_enter(&pflags);
>         *did_some_progress = __perform_reclaim(gfp_mask, order, ac);
>         if (unlikely(!(*did_some_progress)))
> -               return NULL;
> +               goto out;
>
>  retry:
>         page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, order, alloc_flags, ac);
> @@ -4644,7 +4644,8 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>                 drained = true;
>                 goto retry;
>         }
> -
> +       psi_memstall_leave(&pflags);

Oh, psi_memstall_leave should have been *after* the "out" label. Will
fix and repost.

> +out:
>         return page;
>  }
>
> --
> 2.35.1.473.g83b2b277ed-goog
>