Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hello Ying, > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:51:20PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > The fallback to reclaim actually strikes me as wrong. >> > >> > Think of reclaim as 'demoting' the pages to the storage tier. If we >> > have a RAM -> CXL -> storage hierarchy, we should demote from RAM to >> > CXL and from CXL to storage. If we reclaim a page from RAM, it means >> > we 'demote' it directly from RAM to storage, bypassing potentially a >> > huge amount of pages colder than it in CXL. That doesn't seem right. >> > >> > If demotion fails, IMO it shouldn't satisfy the reclaim request by >> > breaking the layering. Rather it should deflect that pressure to the >> > lower layers to make room. This makes sure we maintain an aging >> > pipeline that honors the memory tier hierarchy. >> >> Yes. I think that we should avoid to fall back to reclaim as much as >> possible too. Now, when we allocate memory for demotion >> (alloc_demote_page()), __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM is used. So, we will trigger >> kswapd reclaim on lower tier node to free some memory to avoid fall back >> to reclaim on current (higher tier) node. This may be not good enough, >> for example, the following patch from Hasan may help via waking up >> kswapd earlier. >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/b45b9bf7cd3e21bca61d82dcd1eb692cd32c122c.1637778851.git.hasanalmaruf@xxxxxx/ >> >> Do you know what is the next step plan for this patch? >> >> Should we do even more? >> >> From another point of view, I still think that we can use falling back >> to reclaim as the last resort to avoid OOM in some special situations, >> for example, most pages in the lowest tier node are mlock() or too hot >> to be reclaimed. > > If they're hotter than reclaim candidates on the toptier, shouldn't > they get promoted instead and make room that way? We may have to tweak > the watermark logic a bit to facilitate that (allow promotions where > regular allocations already fail?). But this sort of resorting would > be preferable to age inversions. Now it's legal to enable demotion and disable promotion. Yes, this is wrong configuration in general. But should we trigger OOM for these users? And now promotion only works for default NUMA policy (and MPOL_BIND to both promotion source and target nodes with MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING). If we use some other NUMA policy, the pages cannot be promoted too. > The mlock scenario sounds possible. In that case, it wouldn't be an > aging inversion, since there is nothing colder on the CXL node. > > Maybe a bypass check should explicitly consult the demotion target > watermarks against its evictable pages (similar to the file_is_tiny > check in prepare_scan_count)? Yes. This sounds doable. > Because in any other scenario, if there is a bug in the promo/demo > coordination, I think we'd rather have the OOM than deal with age > inversions causing intermittent performance issues that are incredibly > hard to track down. Previously, I thought that people will always prefer performance regression than OOM. Apparently, I am wrong. Anyway, I think that we need to reduce the possibility of OOM or falling back to reclaim as much as possible firstly. Do you agree? One possibility, can we fall back to reclaim only if the sc->priority is small enough (even 0)? Best Regards, Huang, Ying
