On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 04:20:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:34:29PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > This problem is not a filesystem recursion problem which is, as I
> > > understand it, what GFP_NOFS is used to prevent. It's _any_ kernel
> > > code that uses signficant stack before trying to allocate memory
> > > that is the problem. e.g a select() system call:
> > >
> > > Depth Size Location (47 entries)
> > > ----- ---- --------
> > > 0) 7568 16 mempool_alloc_slab+0x16/0x20
> > > 1) 7552 144 mempool_alloc+0x65/0x140
> > > 2) 7408 96 get_request+0x124/0x370
> > > 3) 7312 144 get_request_wait+0x29/0x1b0
> > > 4) 7168 96 __make_request+0x9b/0x490
> > > 5) 7072 208 generic_make_request+0x3df/0x4d0
> > > 6) 6864 80 submit_bio+0x7c/0x100
> > > 7) 6784 96 _xfs_buf_ioapply+0x128/0x2c0 [xfs]
> > > ....
> > > 32) 3184 64 xfs_vm_writepage+0xab/0x160 [xfs]
> > > 33) 3120 384 shrink_page_list+0x65e/0x840
> > > 34) 2736 528 shrink_zone+0x63f/0xe10
> > > 35) 2208 112 do_try_to_free_pages+0xc2/0x3c0
> > > 36) 2096 128 try_to_free_pages+0x77/0x80
> > > 37) 1968 240 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3e4/0x710
> > > 38) 1728 48 alloc_pages_current+0x8c/0xe0
> > > 39) 1680 16 __get_free_pages+0xe/0x50
> > > 40) 1664 48 __pollwait+0xca/0x110
> > > 41) 1616 32 unix_poll+0x28/0xc0
> > > 42) 1584 16 sock_poll+0x1d/0x20
> > > 43) 1568 912 do_select+0x3d6/0x700
> > > 44) 656 416 core_sys_select+0x18c/0x2c0
> > > 45) 240 112 sys_select+0x4f/0x110
> > > 46) 128 128 system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > >
> > > There's 1.6k of stack used before memory allocation is called, 3.1k
> > > used there before ->writepage is entered, XFS used 3.5k, and
> > > if the mempool needed to allocate a page it would have blown the
> > > stack. If there was any significant storage subsystem (add dm, md
> > > and/or scsi of some kind), it would have blown the stack.
> > >
> > > Basically, there is not enough stack space available to allow direct
> > > reclaim to enter ->writepage _anywhere_ according to the stack usage
> > > profiles we are seeing here....
> > >
> >
> > I'm not denying the evidence but how has it been gotten away with for years
> > then? Prevention of writeback isn't the answer without figuring out how
> > direct reclaimers can queue pages for IO and in the case of lumpy reclaim
> > doing sync IO, then waiting on those pages.
>
> So, I've been reading along, nodding my head to Dave's side of things
> because seeks are evil and direct reclaim makes seeks. I'd really loev
> for direct reclaim to somehow trigger writepages on large chunks instead
> of doing page by page spatters of IO to the drive.
Perhaps drop the lock on the page if it is held and call one of the
helpers that filesystems use to do this, like:
filemap_write_and_wait(page->mapping);
> But, somewhere along the line I overlooked the part of Dave's stack trace
> that said:
>
> 43) 1568 912 do_select+0x3d6/0x700
>
> Huh, 912 bytes...for select, really? From poll.h:
Sure, it's bad, but we focussing on the specific case misses the
point that even code that is using minimal stack can enter direct
reclaim after consuming 1.5k of stack. e.g.:
50) 3168 64 xfs_vm_writepage+0xab/0x160 [xfs]
51) 3104 384 shrink_page_list+0x65e/0x840
52) 2720 528 shrink_zone+0x63f/0xe10
53) 2192 112 do_try_to_free_pages+0xc2/0x3c0
54) 2080 128 try_to_free_pages+0x77/0x80
55) 1952 240 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3e4/0x710
56) 1712 48 alloc_pages_current+0x8c/0xe0
57) 1664 32 __page_cache_alloc+0x67/0x70
58) 1632 144 __do_page_cache_readahead+0xd3/0x220
59) 1488 16 ra_submit+0x21/0x30
60) 1472 80 ondemand_readahead+0x11d/0x250
61) 1392 64 page_cache_async_readahead+0xa9/0xe0
62) 1328 592 __generic_file_splice_read+0x48a/0x530
63) 736 48 generic_file_splice_read+0x4f/0x90
64) 688 96 xfs_splice_read+0xf2/0x130 [xfs]
65) 592 32 xfs_file_splice_read+0x4b/0x50 [xfs]
66) 560 64 do_splice_to+0x77/0xb0
67) 496 112 splice_direct_to_actor+0xcc/0x1c0
68) 384 80 do_splice_direct+0x57/0x80
69) 304 96 do_sendfile+0x16c/0x1e0
70) 208 80 sys_sendfile64+0x8d/0xb0
71) 128 128 system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
Yes, __generic_file_splice_read() is a hog, but they seem to be
_everywhere_ today...
> So, select is intentionally trying to use that much stack. It should be using
> GFP_NOFS if it really wants to suck down that much stack...
The code that did the allocation is called from multiple different
contexts - how is it supposed to know that in some of those contexts
it is supposed to treat memory allocation differently?
This is my point - if you introduce a new semantic to memory allocation
that is "use GFP_NOFS when you are using too much stack" and too much
stack is more than 15% of the stack, then pretty much every code path
will need to set that flag...
> if only the
> kernel had some sort of way to dynamically allocate ram, it could try
> that too.
Sure, but to play the devil's advocate: if memory allocation blows
the stack, then surely avoiding allocation by using stack variables
is safer? ;)
FWIW, even if we use GFP_NOFS, allocation+reclaim can still use 2k
of stack; stuff like the radix tree code appears to be a significant
user of stack now:
Depth Size Location (56 entries)
----- ---- --------
0) 7904 48 __call_rcu+0x67/0x190
1) 7856 16 call_rcu_sched+0x15/0x20
2) 7840 16 call_rcu+0xe/0x10
3) 7824 272 radix_tree_delete+0x159/0x2e0
4) 7552 32 __remove_from_page_cache+0x21/0x110
5) 7520 64 __remove_mapping+0xe8/0x130
6) 7456 384 shrink_page_list+0x400/0x860
7) 7072 528 shrink_zone+0x636/0xdc0
8) 6544 112 do_try_to_free_pages+0xc2/0x3c0
9) 6432 112 try_to_free_pages+0x64/0x70
10) 6320 256 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3d2/0x710
11) 6064 48 alloc_pages_current+0x8c/0xe0
12) 6016 32 __page_cache_alloc+0x67/0x70
13) 5984 80 find_or_create_page+0x50/0xb0
14) 5904 160 _xfs_buf_lookup_pages+0x145/0x350 [xfs]
or even just calling ->releasepage and freeing bufferheads:
Depth Size Location (55 entries)
----- ---- --------
0) 7440 48 add_partial+0x26/0x90
1) 7392 64 __slab_free+0x1a9/0x380
2) 7328 64 kmem_cache_free+0xb9/0x160
3) 7264 16 free_buffer_head+0x25/0x50
4) 7248 64 try_to_free_buffers+0x79/0xc0
5) 7184 160 xfs_vm_releasepage+0xda/0x130 [xfs]
6) 7024 16 try_to_release_page+0x33/0x60
7) 7008 384 shrink_page_list+0x585/0x860
8) 6624 528 shrink_zone+0x636/0xdc0
9) 6096 112 do_try_to_free_pages+0xc2/0x3c0
10) 5984 112 try_to_free_pages+0x64/0x70
11) 5872 256 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3d2/0x710
12) 5616 48 alloc_pages_current+0x8c/0xe0
13) 5568 32 __page_cache_alloc+0x67/0x70
14) 5536 80 find_or_create_page+0x50/0xb0
15) 5456 160 _xfs_buf_lookup_pages+0x145/0x350 [xfs]
And another eye-opening example, this time deep in the sata driver
layer:
Depth Size Location (72 entries)
----- ---- --------
0) 8336 304 select_task_rq_fair+0x235/0xad0
1) 8032 96 try_to_wake_up+0x189/0x3f0
2) 7936 16 default_wake_function+0x12/0x20
3) 7920 32 autoremove_wake_function+0x16/0x40
4) 7888 64 __wake_up_common+0x5a/0x90
5) 7824 64 __wake_up+0x48/0x70
6) 7760 64 insert_work+0x9f/0xb0
7) 7696 48 __queue_work+0x36/0x50
8) 7648 16 queue_work_on+0x4d/0x60
9) 7632 16 queue_work+0x1f/0x30
10) 7616 16 queue_delayed_work+0x2d/0x40
11) 7600 32 ata_pio_queue_task+0x35/0x40
12) 7568 48 ata_sff_qc_issue+0x146/0x2f0
13) 7520 96 mv_qc_issue+0x12d/0x540 [sata_mv]
14) 7424 96 ata_qc_issue+0x1fe/0x320
15) 7328 64 ata_scsi_translate+0xae/0x1a0
16) 7264 64 ata_scsi_queuecmd+0xbf/0x2f0
17) 7200 48 scsi_dispatch_cmd+0x114/0x2b0
18) 7152 96 scsi_request_fn+0x419/0x590
19) 7056 32 __blk_run_queue+0x82/0x150
20) 7024 48 elv_insert+0x1aa/0x2d0
21) 6976 48 __elv_add_request+0x83/0xd0
22) 6928 96 __make_request+0x139/0x490
23) 6832 208 generic_make_request+0x3df/0x4d0
24) 6624 80 submit_bio+0x7c/0x100
25) 6544 96 _xfs_buf_ioapply+0x128/0x2c0 [xfs]
We need at least _700_ bytes of stack free just to call queue_work(),
and that now happens deep in the guts of the driver subsystem below XFS.
This trace shows 1.8k of stack usage on a simple, single sata disk
storage subsystem, so my estimate of 2k of stack for the storage system
below XFS is too small - a worst case of 2.5-3k of stack space is probably
closer to the mark.
This is the sort of thing I'm pointing at when I say that stack
usage outside XFS has grown significantly significantly over the
past couple of years. Given XFS has remained pretty much the same or
even reduced slightly over the same time period, blaming XFS or
saying "callers should use GFP_NOFS" seems like a cop-out to me.
Regardless of the IO pattern performance issues, writeback via
direct reclaim just uses too much stack to be safe these days...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
