Where is my code?
Resend.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:36:21 -0800 Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:16:59PM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>>
>>> > Kswapd tries to rebalance zones persistently until their high
>>> > watermarks are restored.
>>> >
>>> > If the amount of unreclaimable pages in a zone makes this impossible
>>> > for reclaim, though, kswapd will end up in a busy loop without a
>>> > chance of reaching its goal.
>>> >
>>> > This behaviour was observed on a virtual machine with a tiny
>>> > Normal-zone that filled up with unreclaimable slab objects.
>>> >
>>> > This patch makes kswapd skip rebalancing on such 'hopeless' zones and
>>> > leaves them to direct reclaim.
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> We are experiencing a similar issue, though with a 757 MB Normal zone,
>>> where kswapd tries to rebalance Normal after an order-3 allocation while
>>> page cache allocations (order-0) keep splitting it back up again. It can
>>> run the whole day like this (SSD storage) without sleeping.
>>
>> People at google have told me they've seen the same thing. A fork is
>> taking 15 minutes when someone else is doing a dd, because the fork
>> enters direct-reclaim trying for an order-one page. It successfully
>> frees some order-one pages but before it gets back to allocate one, dd
>> has gone and stolen them, or split them apart.
>>
>> This problem would have got worse when slub came along doing its stupid
>> unnecessary high-order allocations.
>>
>> Billions of years ago a direct-reclaimer had a one-deep cache in the
>> task_struct into which it freed the page to prevent it from getting
>> stolen.
>>
>> Later, we took that out because pages were being freed into the
>> per-cpu-pages magazine, which is effectively task-local anyway. But
>> per-cpu-pages are only for order-0 pages. See slub stupidity, above.
>>
>> I expect that this is happening so repeatably because the
>> direct-reclaimer is dong a sleep somewhere after freeing the pages it
>> needs - if it wasn't doing that then surely the window wouldn't be wide
>> enough for it to happen so often. But I didn't look.
>>
>> Suitable fixes might be
>>
>> a) don't go to sleep after the successful direct-reclaim.
>
> It can't make sure success since direct reclaim needs sleep with !GFP_AOMIC.
>
>>
>> b) reinstate the one-deep task-local free page cache.
>
> I like b) so how about this?
> Just for the concept.
>
> @@ -1880,7 +1881,7 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> unsigned int order,
> reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
> p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
>
> - *did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order,
> gfp_mask, nodemask);
> + *did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order,
> gfp_mask, nodemask, &ret_pages);
>
> p->reclaim_state = NULL;
> lockdep_clear_current_reclaim_state();
> @@ -1892,10 +1893,11 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> unsigned int order,
> return NULL;
>
> retry:
> - page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, nodemask, order,
> - zonelist, high_zoneidx,
> - alloc_flags, preferred_zone,
> - migratetype);
> + if(!list_empty(&ret_pages)) {
> + page = lru_to_page(ret_pages);
> + list_del(&page->lru);
> + free_page_list(&ret_pages);
> + }
>
> /*
> * If an allocation failed after direct reclaim, it could be because
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
>
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href