On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 07:19:53PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:12:27PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 04:29:35PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > ==== CUT HERE ====
> > > > vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim
> > > >
> > > > When memory is under enough pressure, a process may enter direct
> > > > reclaim to free pages in the same manner kswapd does. If a dirty page is
> > > > encountered during the scan, this page is written to backing storage using
> > > > mapping->writepage. This can result in very deep call stacks, particularly
> > > > if the target storage or filesystem are complex. It has already been observed
> > > > on XFS that the stack overflows but the problem is not XFS-specific.
> > > >
> > > > This patch prevents direct reclaim writing back filesystem pages by checking
> > > > if current is kswapd or the page is anonymous before writing back. If the
> > > > dirty pages cannot be written back, they are placed back on the LRU lists
> > > > for either background writing by the BDI threads or kswapd. If in direct
> > > > lumpy reclaim and dirty pages are encountered, the process will stall for
> > > > the background flusher before trying to reclaim the pages again.
> > > >
> > > > As the call-chain for writing anonymous pages is not expected to be deep
> > > > and they are not cleaned by flusher threads, anonymous pages are still
> > > > written back in direct reclaim.
> > >
> > > This is also a good step towards reducing pageout() calls. For better
> > > IO performance the flusher threads should take more work from pageout().
> > >
> >
> > This is true for better IO performance all right but reclaim does require
> > specific pages cleaned. The strict requirement is when lumpy reclaim is
> > involved but a looser requirement is when any pages within a zone be cleaned.
>
> Good point, I missed the lumpy reclaim requirement. It seems necessary
> to add a call to the flusher thread to writeback a specific inode range
> (that contains the current dirty page). This is a more reliable way to
> ensure both the strict and looser requirements: the current dirty page
> will guaranteed to be synced, and the inode will have good opportunity
> to contain more dirty pages in the zone, which can be freed quickly if
> tagged PG_reclaim.
>
I'm not sure about an inode range. The window being considered is quite small
and we might select ranges that are too small to be useful. However, taking
the inodes into account makes sense. If wakeup_flusher_thread took a list
of unique inodes that own dirty pages encountered by reclaim, it would then
move inodes to the head of the queue rather than depending just on expired.
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1293,26 +1308,34 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct zone *zone,
> > > >
> > > > spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> > > >
> > > > - nr_reclaimed = shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC);
> > > > + nr_reclaimed = shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC,
> > > > + &nr_dirty);
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > - * If we are direct reclaiming for contiguous pages and we do
> > > > + * If specific pages are needed such as with direct reclaiming
> > > > + * for contiguous pages or for memory containers and we do
> > > > * not reclaim everything in the list, try again and wait
> > > > - * for IO to complete. This will stall high-order allocations
> > > > - * but that should be acceptable to the caller
> > > > + * for IO to complete. This will stall callers that require
> > > > + * specific pages but it should be acceptable to the caller
> > > > */
> > > > - if (nr_reclaimed < nr_taken && !current_is_kswapd() &&
> > > > - sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode) {
> > > > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > > > + if (sc->may_writepage && !current_is_kswapd() &&
> > > > + (sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode || sc->mem_cgroup)) {
> > > > + int dirty_retry = MAX_SWAP_CLEAN_WAIT;
> > > >
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * The attempt at page out may have made some
> > > > - * of the pages active, mark them inactive again.
> > > > - */
> > > > - nr_active = clear_active_flags(&page_list, NULL);
> > > > - count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_active);
> > > > + while (nr_reclaimed < nr_taken && nr_dirty && dirty_retry--) {
> > > > + wakeup_flusher_threads(laptop_mode ? 0 : nr_dirty);
> > > > + congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > >
> > > It needs good luck for the flusher threads to "happen to" sync the
> > > dirty pages in our page_list.
> >
> > That is why I'm expecting the "shrink oldest inode" patchset to help. It
> > still requires a certain amount of luck but callers that encounter dirty
> > pages will be delayed.
> >
> > It's also because a certain amount of luck is required that the last patch
> > in the series aims at reducing the number of dirty pages encountered by
> > reclaim. The closer that is to 0, the less important the timing of flusher
> > threads is.
>
> OK.
>
> > > I'd rather take the logic as "there are
> > > too many dirty pages, shrink them to avoid some future pageout() calls
> > > and/or congestion_wait() stalls".
> > >
> >
> > What do you mean by shrink them? They cannot be reclaimed until they are
> > clean.
>
> I mean we are freeing much more than nr_dirty pages. In this sense we
> are shrinking the number of dirty pages. Note that we are calling
> wakeup_flusher_threads(nr_dirty), however the real synced pages will
> be much more than nr_dirty, that is reasonable good behavior.
>
Ok.
> > > So the loop is likely to repeat MAX_SWAP_CLEAN_WAIT times. Let's remove it?
> > >
> >
> > This loop only applies to direct reclaimers in lumpy reclaim mode and
> > memory containers. Both need specific pages to be cleaned and freed.
> > Hence, the loop is to stall them and wait on flusher threads up to a
> > point. Otherwise they can cause a reclaim storm of clean pages that
> > can't be used.
>
> Agreed. We could call the flusher to sync the inode explicitly, as
> recommended above. This will clean and free (with PG_reclaim) the page
> in seconds. With reasonable waits here we may avoid reclaim storm
> effectively.
>
I'll follow this suggestion as a new patch.
> > Current tests have not indicated MAX_SWAP_CLEAN_WAIT is regularly reached
> > but I am inferring this from timing data rather than a direct measurement.
> >
> > > > - nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The attempt at page out may have made some
> > > > + * of the pages active, mark them inactive again.
> > > > + */
> > > > + nr_active = clear_active_flags(&page_list, NULL);
> > > > + count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_active);
> > > > +
> > > > + nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc,
> > > > + PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC, &nr_dirty);
> > >
> > > This shrink_page_list() won't be called at all if nr_dirty==0 and
> > > pageout() was called. This is a change of behavior. It can also be
> > > fixed by removing the loop.
> > >
> >
> > The whole patch is a change of behaviour but in this case it also makes
> > sense to focus on just the dirty pages. The first shrink_page_list
> > decided that the pages could not be unmapped and reclaimed - probably
> > because it was referenced. This is not likely to change during the loop.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Testing with a version of the patch that processed the full list added
> > significant stalls when sync writeback was involved. Testing time length
> > was tripled in one case implying that this loop was continually reaching
> > MAX_SWAP_CLEAN_WAIT.
>
> I'm OK with the change actually, this removes one not-that-user-friendly
> wait_on_page_writeback().
>
> > The intention of this loop is "wait on dirty pages to be cleaned" and
> > it's a change of behaviour, but one that makes sense and testing
> > indicates it's a good idea.
>
> I mean, this loop may be unwinded. And we may need another loop to
> sync the inodes that contains the dirty pages.
>
I'm not quite sure what you mean here but I think it might tie into the
idea of passing a list of inodes to the flusher threads. Lets see what
that ends up looking like.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>