On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 14-07-16 10:00:16, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed 13-07-16 11:02:15, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
> > > > > index 4f3cb3554944..0b806810efab 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
> > > > > @@ -1392,11 +1392,14 @@ static void kcryptd_async_done(struct crypto_async_request *async_req,
> > > > > static void kcryptd_crypt(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct dm_crypt_io *io = container_of(work, struct dm_crypt_io, work);
> > > > > + unsigned int pflags = current->flags;
> > > > >
> > > > > + current->flags |= PF_LESS_THROTTLE;
> > > > > if (bio_data_dir(io->base_bio) == READ)
> > > > > kcryptd_crypt_read_convert(io);
> > > > > else
> > > > > kcryptd_crypt_write_convert(io);
> > > > > + tsk_restore_flags(current, pflags, PF_LESS_THROTTLE);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static void kcryptd_queue_crypt(struct dm_crypt_io *io)
> > > >
> > > > ^^^ That fixes just one specific case - but there may be other threads
> > > > doing mempool allocations in the device mapper subsystem - and you would
> > > > need to mark all of them.
> > >
> > > Now that I am thinking about it some more. Are there any mempool users
> > > which would actually want to be throttled? I would expect mempool users
> > > are necessary to push IO through and throttle them sounds like a bad
> > > decision in the first place but there might be other mempool users which
> > > could cause issues. Anyway how about setting PF_LESS_THROTTLE
> > > unconditionally inside mempool_alloc? Something like the following:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/mempool.c b/mm/mempool.c
> > > index 8f65464da5de..e21fb632983f 100644
> > > --- a/mm/mempool.c
> > > +++ b/mm/mempool.c
> > > @@ -310,7 +310,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mempool_resize);
> > > */
> > > void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > {
> > > - void *element;
> > > + unsigned int pflags = current->flags;
> > > + void *element = NULL;
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > > wait_queue_t wait;
> > > gfp_t gfp_temp;
> > > @@ -327,6 +328,12 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > >
> > > gfp_temp = gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM|__GFP_IO);
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Make sure that the allocation doesn't get throttled during the
> > > + * reclaim
> > > + */
> > > + if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
> > > + current->flags |= PF_LESS_THROTTLE;
> > > repeat_alloc:
> > > if (likely(pool->curr_nr)) {
> > > /*
> > > @@ -339,7 +346,7 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > >
> > > element = pool->alloc(gfp_temp, pool->pool_data);
> > > if (likely(element != NULL))
> > > - return element;
> > > + goto out;
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(&pool->lock, flags);
> > > if (likely(pool->curr_nr)) {
> > > @@ -352,7 +359,7 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > * for debugging.
> > > */
> > > kmemleak_update_trace(element);
> > > - return element;
> > > + goto out;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -369,7 +376,7 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > /* We must not sleep if !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM */
> > > if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)) {
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags);
> > > - return NULL;
> > > + goto out;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* Let's wait for someone else to return an element to @pool */
> > > @@ -386,6 +393,10 @@ void *mempool_alloc(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > >
> > > finish_wait(&pool->wait, &wait);
> > > goto repeat_alloc;
> > > +out:
> > > + if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask))
> > > + tsk_restore_flags(current, pflags, PF_LESS_THROTTLE);
> > > + return element;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(mempool_alloc);
> > >
> >
> > But it needs other changes to honor the PF_LESS_THROTTLE flag:
> >
> > static int current_may_throttle(void)
> > {
> > return !(current->flags & PF_LESS_THROTTLE) ||
> > current->backing_dev_info == NULL ||
> > bdi_write_congested(current->backing_dev_info);
> > }
> > --- if you set PF_LESS_THROTTLE, current_may_throttle may still return
> > true if one of the other conditions is met.
>
> That is true but doesn't that mean that the device is congested and
> waiting a bit is the right thing to do?
You shouldn't really throttle mempool allocations at all. It's better to
fail the allocation quickly and allocate from a mempool reserve than to
wait 0.1 seconds in the reclaim path.
dm-crypt can do approximatelly 100MB/s. That means that it processes 25k
swap pages per second. If you wait in mempool_alloc, the allocation would
be satisfied in 0.00004s. If you wait in the allocator's throttle
function, you waste 0.1s.
It is also questionable if those 0.1 second sleeps are reasonable at all.
SSDs with 100k IOPS are common - they can drain the request queue in much
less time than 0.1 second. I think those hardcoded 0.1 second sleeps
should be replaced with sleeps until the device stops being congested.
Mikulas
> > shrink_zone_memcg calls throttle_vm_writeout without checking
> > PF_LESS_THROTTLE at all.
>
> Yes it doesn't call it because it relies on
> global_dirty_limits()->domain_dirty_limits() to DTRT. It will give the
> caller with PF_LESS_THROTTLE some boost wrt. all other writers.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>