On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Usama Arif wrote:
> On 05/09/2024 09:46, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2024, Usama Arif wrote:
> >
> >> From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> If a tail page has only two references left, one inherited from the
> >> isolation of its head and the other from lru_add_page_tail() which we
> >> are about to drop, it means this tail page was concurrently zapped.
> >> Then we can safely free it and save page reclaim or migration the
> >> trouble of trying it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Tested-by: Shuang Zhai <zhais@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I think this patch (just this 1/6) needs to be dropped:
> > it is only an optimization, and unless a persuasive performance case
> > can be made to extend it, it ought to go (perhaps revisited later).
> >
>
> I am ok for patch 1 only to be dropped. Patches 2-6 are not dependent on it.
>
> Its an optimization and underused shrinker doesn't depend on it.
> Its possible that folio->new_folio below might fix it? But if it doesn't,
> I can retry later on to make this work and resend it only if it alone shows
> a significant performance improvement.
>
> Thanks a lot for debugging this! and sorry it caused an issue.
>
>
> > The problem I kept hitting was that all my work, requiring compaction and
> > reclaim, got (killably) stuck in or repeatedly calling reclaim_throttle():
> > because nr_isolated_anon had grown high - and remained high even when the
> > load had all been killed.
> >
> > Bisection led to the 2/6 (remap to shared zeropage), but I'd say this 1/6
> > is the one to blame. I was intending to send this patch to "fix" it:
> >
> > --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> > @@ -3295,6 +3295,8 @@ static void __split_huge_page(struct pag
> > folio_clear_active(new_folio);
> > folio_clear_unevictable(new_folio);
> > list_del(&new_folio->lru);
> > + node_stat_sub_folio(folio, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> > + folio_is_file_lru(folio));
>
> Maybe this should have been below? (Notice the folio->new_folio)
>
> + node_stat_sub_folio(new_folio, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> + folio_is_file_lru(new_folio));
Yes, how very stupid of me (I'm well aware of the earlier bugfixes here,
and ought not to have done a blind copy and paste of those lines): thanks.
However... it makes no difference. I gave yours a run, expecting a
much smaller negative number, but actually it works out much the same:
because, of course, by this point in the code "folio" is left pointing
to a small folio, and is almost equivalent to new_folio for the
node_stat calculations.
(I say "almost" because I guess there's a chance that the page at
folio got reused as part of a larger folio meanwhile, which would
throw the stats off (if they weren't off already).)
So, even with your fix to my fix, this code doesn't work.
Whereas a revert of this 1/6 does work: nr_isolated_anon and
nr_isolated_file come to 0 when the system is at rest, as expected
(and as silence from vmstat_refresh confirms - /proc/vmstat itself
presents negative stats as 0, in order to hide transient oddities).
Hugh
>
> > if (!folio_batch_add(&free_folios, new_folio)) {
> > mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(&free_folios);
> > free_unref_folios(&free_folios);
> >
> > And that ran nicely, until I terminated the run and did
> > grep nr_isolated /proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh /proc/vmstat
> > at the end: stat_refresh kindly left a pr_warn in dmesg to say
> > nr_isolated_anon -334013737
> >
> > My patch is not good enough. IIUC, some split_huge_pagers (reclaim?)
> > know how many pages they isolated and decremented the stats by, and
> > increment by that same number at the end; whereas other split_huge_pagers
> > (migration?) decrement one by one as they go through the list afterwards.
> >
> > I've run out of time (I'm about to take a break): I gave up researching
> > who needs what, and was already feeling this optimization does too much
> > second guessing of what's needed (and its array of VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIOs
> > rather admits to that).
> >
> > And I don't think it's as simple as moving the node_stat_sub_folio()
> > into 2/6 where the zero pte is substituted: that would probably handle
> > the vast majority of cases, but aren't there others which pass the
> > folio_ref_freeze(new_folio, 2) test - the title's zapped tail pages,
> > or racily truncated now that the folio has been unlocked, for example?
> >
> > Hugh
