On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:38:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 07:33:57PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:57:26PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:51:23AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >> > > What's a window low and min wmark? Maybe I can miss your point.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > The window is due to the fact kswapd is not awake yet. The window is because
> > >> > kswapd might not be awake as NR_FREE_PAGES is higher than it should be. The
> > >> > system is really somewhere between the low and min watermark but we are not
> > >> > taking the accurate measure until kswapd gets woken up. The first allocation
> > >> > to notice we are below the low watermark (be it due to vmstat refreshing or
> > >> > that NR_FREE_PAGES happens to report we are below the watermark regardless of
> > >> > any drift) wakes kswapd and other callers then take an accurate count hence
> > >> > "we could breach the watermark but I'm expecting it can only happen for at
> > >> > worst one allocation".
> > >>
> > >> Right. I misunderstood your word.
> > >> One more question.
> > >>
> > >> Could you explain live lock scenario?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Lets say
> > >
> > > NR_FREE_PAGES = 256
> > > Actual free pages = 8
> > >
> > > The PCP lists get refilled in patch taking all 8 pages. Now there are
> > > zero free pages. Reclaim kicks in but to reclaim any pages it needs to
> > > clean something but all the pages are on a network-backed filesystem. To
> > > clean them, it must transmit on the network so it tries to allocate some
> > > buffers.
> > >
> > > The livelock is that to free some memory, an allocation must succeed but
> > > for an allocation to succeed, some memory must be freed. The system
> >
> > Yes. I understood this as livelock but at last VM will kill victim
> > process then it can allocate free pages.
>
> And if the exit path for the OOM kill needs to allocate a page what
> should it do?
Yeah. It might be livelock.
Then, let's rethink the problem.
The problem is following as.
1. Process A try to allocate the page
2. VM try to reclaim the page for process A
3. VM reclaims some pages but it remains on PCP so can't allocate pages for A
4. VM try to kill process B
5. The exit path need new pages for exiting process B
6. Livelock happens(I am not sure but we need any warning if it really happens at least)
If OOM kills process B successfully, there ins't the livelock problem.
So then How about this?
We need to retry allocation of new page with draining free pages just before OOM.
It doesn't have any overhead before going OOM and it's not frequent.
This patch can't handle your problem?
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 1bb327a..113bea9 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -2045,6 +2045,15 @@ rebalance:
* running out of options and have to consider going OOM
*/
if (!did_some_progress) {
+
+ /* Ther are some free pages on PCP */
+ drain_all_pages();
+ page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, nodemask, order, zonelist,
+ high_zoneidx, alloc_flags &~ALLOCX_NO_WATERMARKS,
+ preferred_zone, migratetype);
+ if (page)
+ goto got_pg;
+
if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
if (oom_killer_disabled)
goto nopage;
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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>