> 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. I agree that "seeks are evil and direct reclaim makes seeks". Actually, making 4k io is not must for pageout. So, probably we can improve it. > 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); Sorry, I'm lost what you talk about. Why do we need per-file waiting? If file is 1GB file, do we need to wait 1GB writeout? > > > 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.: checkstack.pl says do_select() and __generic_file_splice_read() are one of worstest stack consumer. both sould be fixed. also, checkstack.pl says such stack eater aren't so much. > > 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... Nodding my head to Dave's side. changing caller argument seems not good solution. I mean - do_select() should use GFP_KERNEL instead stack (as revert 70674f95c0) - reclaim and xfs (and other something else) need to diet. Also, I believe stack eater function should be created waring. patch attached. > > 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. your explanation is very interesting. I have a (probably dumb) question. Why nobody faced stack overflow issue in past? now I think every users easily get stack overflow if your explanation is correct. > > 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... Yeah, My answer is simple, All stack eater should be fixed. but XFS seems not innocence too. 3.5K is enough big although xfs have use such amount since very ago. =========================================================== Subject: [PATCH] kconfig: reduce FRAME_WARN default value to 512 Surprisedly, now several odd functions use very much stack. % objdump -d vmlinux | ./scripts/checkstack.pl 0xffffffff81e3db07 get_next_block [vmlinux]: 1976 0xffffffff8130b9bd node_read_meminfo [vmlinux]: 1240 0xffffffff811553fd do_sys_poll [vmlinux]: 1000 0xffffffff8122b49d test_aead [vmlinux]: 904 0xffffffff81154c9d do_select [vmlinux]: 888 0xffffffff81168d9d default_file_splice_read [vmlinux]: 760 Oh well, Every developers have to pay attention a stack usage! Thus, this patch reduce FRAME_WARN default value to 512. Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- lib/Kconfig.debug | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index ff01710..44ebba6 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -28,8 +28,7 @@ config ENABLE_MUST_CHECK config FRAME_WARN int "Warn for stack frames larger than (needs gcc 4.4)" range 0 8192 - default 1024 if !64BIT - default 2048 if 64BIT + default 512 help Tell gcc to warn at build time for stack frames larger than this. Setting this too low will cause a lot of warnings. -- 1.6.5.2 -- 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
