| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Yo+0HMJYuhiJv+Ak@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 10:08:44 -0700
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Martin Liu <liumartin@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: [PATCH] mm: throttle LRU pages skipping on rmap_lock contention
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 12:55:16PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 07:05:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 May 2022 15:57:09 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Could we burn much CPU time pointlessly churning though the LRU? Could
> > > > it mess up aging decisions enough to be performance-affecting in any
> > > > workload?
> > >
> > > Yes, correct. However, we are already churning LRUs by several
> > > ways. For example, isolate and putback from LRU list for page
> > > migration from several sources(typical example is compaction)
> > > and trylock_page and sc->gfp_mask not allowing page to be
> > > reclaimed in shrink_page_list.
> >
> > Well. "we're already doing a risky thing so it's OK to do more of that
> > thing"?
>
> I meant the aging is not rocket science.
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Something else?
> > >
> > > One thing I am worry about was the granularity of the churning.
> > > Example above was page granuarity churning so might be execuse
> > > but this one is address space's churning, especically for file LRU
> > > (i_mmap_rwsem) which might cause too many rotating and live-lock
> > > in the end(keey rotating in small LRU with heavy memory pressure).
> > >
> > > If it could be a problem, maybe we use sc->priority to stop
> > > the skipping on a certain level of memory pressure.
> > >
> > > Any thought? Do we really need it?
> >
> > Are we able to think of a test which might demonstrate any worst case?
> > Whip that up and see what the numbers say?
>
> Yeah, let me create a worst test case to see how it goes.
>
> A thread keep reading a file-backed vma with 2xRAM file but other threads
> keep changing other vmas mapped at the same file so heavy i_mmap_rwsem
> contention in aging path.
Forking new thread
I checked what happens the worst case. I am not sure how the worst
case is realistic but would be great to have safety net.
>From 5ccc8b170af5496f803243732e96b131419d7462 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 19:48:12 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] mm: throttle LRU pages skipping on rmap_lock contention
On heavy contention on rmap_lock(e.g., i_mmap_rwsem), VM can keep
skipping LRU pages so reclaim efficiency(steal/scanning) would drop
from 48% to 27% and workingset would be reclaimed faster than old
so workingset_refault rate increased to 240%.
We need a safe net to throttle the skipping LRU pages. This patch
throttle the skipping policy using (DEF_PRIRORITY - 2) magic value
VM has used for indicating non-light memory pressure.
IOW, let's skip rmap_lock contendeded pages only when
only when sc->priority >= (DEF_PRIRORITY - 2).
The test scenario to see the worst case:
1. A thread mmap a big file(e.g., 2x times of RAM) and keep touching
the address space up to three times.
2. B thread keeps doing mmap/munmap with the same file to cause
heavy lock contention in i_mmap_rwsem until the A thread finish
the job.
3. measure vmstat and thread A's elapsed time.
Thread's elapsed time:
1. vanilla
24.64sec(5.04%)
2. rmap_skip(i.e., mm-dont-be-stuck-to-rmap-lock-on-reclaim-path.patch)
25.20sec(4.16%)
3. priority(2 + this patch)
23.62sec(6.61%)
Vmstat Comparison:
vanilla rmap_skip priority
allocstall_movable 582 9772 14643
pgactivate 232 25865 4906
pgdeactivate 78 17265 651
pgmajfault 58 10639 1376
pgsteal_kswapd 15947857 15133195 15095445
pgsteal_direct 105439 583092 943195
pgscan_kswapd 24647536 52768898 28103170
pgscan_direct 8398139 3767100 7966353
workingset_refault_file 12582926 12248353 12565934
B test scenario
1. A thread mmap a big file(e.g., 2x times of RAM) and keep touching
the address space up to three times.
2. B thread keeps doing mmap/munmap with the same file to cause
heavy lock contention in i_mmap_rwsem until the A thread finish
the job.
3. C thread keep reading other big file using read(2) syscall
4. measure vmstat and thread A's elapsed time.
1. vanilla
27.24sec(5.29%)
2. rmap_skip
33.54sec(3.20%)
3. priority
28.68sec(1.26%)
Vmstat Comparison:
vanilla rmap_skip priority
allocstall_movable 15262 81258 21644
pgactivate 3042004 3086906 3502959
pgdeactivate 2307849 8959162 3605768
pgmajfault 566 1059 557
pgsteal_kswapd 17557735 30861283 18385674
pgsteal_direct 955389 6353527 1233605
pgscan_kswapd 31622695 59670433 35372575
pgscan_direct 4924052 13939254 4310247
workingset_refault_file 13466538 32193161 14588019
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
---
include/linux/rmap.h | 5 +++--
mm/rmap.c | 6 ++++--
mm/vmscan.c | 6 ++++--
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
index 9ec23138e410..2893da3f1cd3 100644
--- a/include/linux/rmap.h
+++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
@@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ static inline int page_try_share_anon_rmap(struct page *page)
* Called from mm/vmscan.c to handle paging out
*/
int folio_referenced(struct folio *, int is_locked,
- struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned long *vm_flags);
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned long *vm_flags,
+ bool rmap_try_lock);
void try_to_migrate(struct folio *folio, enum ttu_flags flags);
void try_to_unmap(struct folio *, enum ttu_flags flags);
@@ -418,7 +419,7 @@ void page_unlock_anon_vma_read(struct anon_vma *anon_vma);
static inline int folio_referenced(struct folio *folio, int is_locked,
struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
- unsigned long *vm_flags)
+ unsigned long *vm_flags, bool rmap_try_lock)
{
*vm_flags = 0;
return 0;
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index d4cf3ea1b616..a75c7f7a0392 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -888,6 +888,7 @@ static bool invalid_folio_referenced_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, void *arg)
* @is_locked: Caller holds lock on the folio.
* @memcg: target memory cgroup
* @vm_flags: A combination of all the vma->vm_flags which referenced the folio.
+ * @rmap_try_lock: bail out if the rmap lock is contended
*
* Quick test_and_clear_referenced for all mappings of a folio,
*
@@ -895,7 +896,8 @@ static bool invalid_folio_referenced_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, void *arg)
* the function bailed out due to rmap lock contention.
*/
int folio_referenced(struct folio *folio, int is_locked,
- struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned long *vm_flags)
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned long *vm_flags,
+ bool rmap_try_lock)
{
int we_locked = 0;
struct folio_referenced_arg pra = {
@@ -906,7 +908,7 @@ int folio_referenced(struct folio *folio, int is_locked,
.rmap_one = folio_referenced_one,
.arg = (void *)&pra,
.anon_lock = folio_lock_anon_vma_read,
- .try_lock = true,
+ .try_lock = rmap_try_lock,
};
*vm_flags = 0;
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index ac168f4b0492..f0987e027aba 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1381,7 +1381,8 @@ static enum page_references folio_check_references(struct folio *folio,
unsigned long vm_flags;
referenced_ptes = folio_referenced(folio, 1, sc->target_mem_cgroup,
- &vm_flags);
+ &vm_flags,
+ sc->priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2);
referenced_folio = folio_test_clear_referenced(folio);
/*
@@ -2497,7 +2498,8 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
/* Referenced or rmap lock contention: rotate */
if (folio_referenced(folio, 0, sc->target_mem_cgroup,
- &vm_flags) != 0) {
+ &vm_flags,
+ sc->priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2) != 0) {
/*
* Identify referenced, file-backed active pages and
* give them one more trip around the active list. So
--
2.36.1.124.g0e6072fb45-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists