linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm/numa_balancing: Fix the memory thrashing problem in the single-threaded process

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]

Message-ID: <ea121294-eeaf-42b1-bc1c-186f4ea7be1d@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 11:45:46 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
 mgorman@...e.de, ying.huang@...el.com
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wuyun.abel@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/numa_balancing: Fix the memory thrashing problem in
 the single-threaded process



On 7/23/24 11:02, Zhongkun He wrote:
> I found a problem in my test machine that the memory of a process is
> repeatedly migrated between two nodes and does not stop.
> 
> 1.Test step and the machines.
> ------------
> VM machine: 4 numa nodes and 10GB per node.
> 
> stress --vm 1 --vm-bytes 12g --vm-keep
> 
> The info of numa stat:
> while :;do cat memory.numa_stat | grep -w anon;sleep 5;done
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10250747904 N3=2634334208
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10250747904 N3=2634334208
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=9937256448 N3=2947825664
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=8863514624 N3=4021567488
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=7789772800 N3=5095309312
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=6716030976 N3=6169051136
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5642289152 N3=7242792960
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5105442816 N3=7779639296
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5105442816 N3=7779639296
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=4837007360 N3=8048074752
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=3763265536 N3=9121816576
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2689523712 N3=10195558400
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2515148800 N3=10369933312
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2515148800 N3=10369933312
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2515148800 N3=10369933312
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=3320455168 N3=9564626944
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=4394196992 N3=8490885120
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5105442816 N3=7779639296
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=6174195712 N3=6710886400
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=7247937536 N3=5637144576
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=8321679360 N3=4563402752
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=9395421184 N3=3489660928
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10247872512 N3=2637209600
> anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10247872512 N3=2637209600
> 
> 2. Root cause:
> Since commit 3e32158767b0 ("mm/mprotect.c: don't touch single threaded
> PTEs which are on the right node")the PTE of local pages will not be
> changed in change_pte_range() for single-threaded process, so no
> page_faults information will be generated in do_numa_page(). If a
> single-threaded process has memory on another node, it will
> unconditionally migrate all of it's local memory to that node,
> even if the remote node has only one page.
> 
> So, let's fix it. The memory of single-threaded process should follow
> the cpu, not the numa faults info in order to avoid memory thrashing.
> 
> After a long time of testing, there is no memory thrashing
> from the beginning.
> 
> while :;do cat memory.numa_stat | grep -w anon;sleep 5;done
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> anon N0=2548117504 N1=10336903168 N2=139264 N3=0
> 
> V1:
> -- Add the test results (numa stats) from Ying's feedback
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>
> Acked-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 24dda708b699..d7cbbda568fb 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -2898,6 +2898,12 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p)
>  		numa_group_count_active_nodes(ng);
>  		spin_unlock_irq(group_lock);
>  		max_nid = preferred_group_nid(p, max_nid);
> +	} else if (atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users) == 1) {
> +		/*
> +		 * The memory of a single-threaded process should
> +		 * follow the CPU in order to avoid memory thrashing.
> +		 */
> +		max_nid = numa_node_id();
>  	}
>  
>  	if (max_faults) {

This in fact makes sense for a single threaded process but just
wondering could there be any other unwanted side effects ?