On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue 14-03-17 18:07:38, Yang Li wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri 10-03-17 17:31:56, Yang Li wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> >
>> >> > We currently have 2 specific WQ_RECLAIM workqueues in the mm code.
>> >> > vmstat_wq for updating pcp stats and lru_add_drain_wq dedicated to drain
>> >> > per cpu lru caches. This seems more than necessary because both can run
>> >> > on a single WQ. Both do not block on locks requiring a memory allocation
>> >> > nor perform any allocations themselves. We will save one rescuer thread
>> >> > this way.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the other hand drain_all_pages() queues work on the system wq which
>> >> > doesn't have rescuer and so this depend on memory allocation (when all
>> >> > workers are stuck allocating and new ones cannot be created). This is
>> >> > not critical as there should be somebody invoking the OOM killer (e.g.
>> >> > the forking worker) and get the situation unstuck and eventually
>> >> > performs the draining. Quite annoying though. This worker should be
>> >> > using WQ_RECLAIM as well. We can reuse the same one as for lru draining
>> >> > and vmstat.
>> >> >
>> >> > Changes since v1
>> >> > - rename vmstat_wq to mm_percpu_wq - per Mel
>> >> > - make sure we are not trying to enqueue anything while the WQ hasn't
>> >> > been intialized yet. This shouldn't happen because the initialization
>> >> > is done from an init code but some init section might be triggering
>> >> > those paths indirectly so just warn and skip the draining in that case
>> >> > per Vlastimil
>> >>
>> >> So what's the plan if this really happens? Shall we put the
>> >> initialization of the mm_percpu_wq earlier?
>> >
>> > yes
>> >
>> >> Or if it is really harmless we can probably remove the warnings.
>> >
>> > Yeah, it is harmless but if we can move it earlier then it would be
>> > prefferable to fix this.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm seeing this on arm64 with a linux-next tree:
>> > [...]
>> >> [ 0.279000] [<ffffff80081636bc>] drain_all_pages+0x244/0x25c
>> >> [ 0.279065] [<ffffff80081c675c>] start_isolate_page_range+0x14c/0x1f0
>> >> [ 0.279137] [<ffffff8008166a48>] alloc_contig_range+0xec/0x354
>> >> [ 0.279203] [<ffffff80081c6c5c>] cma_alloc+0x100/0x1fc
>> >> [ 0.279263] [<ffffff8008481714>] dma_alloc_from_contiguous+0x3c/0x44
>> >> [ 0.279336] [<ffffff8008b25720>] atomic_pool_init+0x7c/0x208
>> >> [ 0.279399] [<ffffff8008b258f0>] arm64_dma_init+0x44/0x4c
>> >> [ 0.279461] [<ffffff8008083144>] do_one_initcall+0x38/0x128
>> >> [ 0.279525] [<ffffff8008b20d30>] kernel_init_freeable+0x1a0/0x240
>> >> [ 0.279596] [<ffffff8008807778>] kernel_init+0x10/0xfc
>> >> [ 0.279654] [<ffffff8008082b70>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>> >
>> > The following should address this. I didn't get to test it yet though.
>> > ---
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
>> > index 21ee5503c702..8362dca071cb 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>> > @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ struct user_struct;
>> > struct writeback_control;
>> > struct bdi_writeback;
>> >
>> > +void init_mm_internals(void);
>> > +
>> > #ifndef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES /* Don't use mapnrs, do it properly */
>> > extern unsigned long max_mapnr;
>> >
>> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
>> > index 51aa8f336819..c72d35250e84 100644
>> > --- a/init/main.c
>> > +++ b/init/main.c
>> > @@ -1023,6 +1023,8 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void)
>> >
>> > workqueue_init();
>> >
>> > + init_mm_internals();
>> > +
>> > do_pre_smp_initcalls();
>> > lockup_detector_init();
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
>> > index 4bbc775f9d08..d0871fc1aeca 100644
>> > --- a/mm/vmstat.c
>> > +++ b/mm/vmstat.c
>> > @@ -1762,7 +1762,7 @@ static int vmstat_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
>> >
>> > struct workqueue_struct *mm_percpu_wq;
>> >
>> > -static int __init setup_vmstat(void)
>> > +void __init init_mm_internals(void)
>> > {
>> > int ret __maybe_unused;
>> >
>> > @@ -1792,9 +1792,7 @@ static int __init setup_vmstat(void)
>> > proc_create("vmstat", S_IRUGO, NULL, &proc_vmstat_file_operations);
>> > proc_create("zoneinfo", S_IRUGO, NULL, &proc_zoneinfo_file_operations);
>> > #endif
>> > - return 0;
>> > }
>> > -module_init(setup_vmstat)
>> >
>> > #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS) && defined(CONFIG_COMPACTION)
>>
>> I did a test on arm64. This do fix the warnings.
>
> Thanks! Can I assume your
> Tested-by: Yang Li <pku.leo@xxxxxxxxx>
Sure.
Tested-by: Li Yang <pku.leo@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Leo
--
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>
