[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aLg7ajpko2j1qV4h@tiehlicka>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:58:18 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@...or.com>
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, surenb@...gle.com, liulu.liu@...or.com,
feng.han@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm/oom_kill: The OOM reaper traverses the VMA
maple tree in reverse order
On Wed 03-09-25 17:27:29, zhongjinji wrote:
> Although the oom_reaper is delayed and it gives the oom victim chance to
> clean up its address space this might take a while especially for
> processes with a large address space footprint. In those cases
> oom_reaper might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
> resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
>
> Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end of the
> address space.
>
> It is also a significant improvement for process_mrelease(). When a process
> is killed, process_mrelease is used to reap the killed process and often
> runs concurrently with the dying task. The test data shows that after
> applying the patch, lock contention is greatly reduced during the procedure
> of reaping the killed process.
Thank you this is much better!
> Without the patch:
> |--99.74%-- oom_reaper
> | |--76.67%-- unmap_page_range
> | | |--33.70%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> | | | |--98.46%-- _raw_spin_lock
> | | |--27.61%-- free_swap_and_cache_nr
> | | |--16.40%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> | | |--12.25%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> | |--12.61%-- tlb_finish_mmu
>
> With the patch:
> |--98.84%-- oom_reaper
> | |--53.45%-- unmap_page_range
> | | |--24.29%-- [hit in function]
> | | |--48.06%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> | | |--17.99%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> | | |--1.72%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> | |--30.43%-- tlb_finish_mmu
Just curious. Do I read this correctly that the overall speedup is
mostly eaten by contention over tlb_finish_mmu?
> Signed-off-by: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@...or.com>
Anyway, the change on its own makes sense to me
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Thanks for working on the changelog improvements.
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 3caaafc896d4..540b1e5e0e46 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> bool ret = true;
> - VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
> + MA_STATE(mas, &mm->mm_mt, ULONG_MAX, ULONG_MAX);
>
> /*
> * Tell all users of get_user/copy_from_user etc... that the content
> @@ -526,7 +526,13 @@ static bool __oom_reap_task_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> */
> set_bit(MMF_UNSTABLE, &mm->flags);
>
> - for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
> + /*
> + * It might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
> + * resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
> + * Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end
> + * of the address space.
> + */
> + mas_for_each_rev(&mas, vma, 0) {
> if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP))
> continue;
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists