On Thu 30-08-18 10:02:23, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2018, at 9:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Thu 30-08-18 09:22:21, Zi Yan wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2018, at 3:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed 29-08-18 18:54:23, Zi Yan wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> I tested it against Linus’s tree with “memhog -r3 130g” in a two-socket machine with 128GB memory on
> >>>> each node and got the results below. I expect this test should fill one node, then fall back to the other.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. madvise(MADV_HUGEPAGE) + defrag = {always, madvise, defer+madvise}:
> >>>> no swap, THPs are allocated in the fallback node.
> >>>> 2. madvise(MADV_HUGEPAGE) + defrag = defer: pages got swapped to the
> >>>> disk instead of being allocated in the fallback node.
> >>>> 3. no madvise, THP is on by default + defrag = {always, defer,
> >>>> defer+madvise}: pages got swapped to the disk instead of being
> >>>> allocated in the fallback node.
> >>>> 4. no madvise, THP is on by default + defrag = madvise: no swap, base
> >>>> pages are allocated in the fallback node.
> >>>>
> >>>> The result 2 and 3 seems unexpected, since pages should be allocated in the fallback node.
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason, as Andrea mentioned in his email, is that the combination
> >>>> of __THIS_NODE and __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM (plus __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM
> >>>> from this experiment).
> >>>
> >>> But we do not set __GFP_THISNODE along with __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM AFAICS.
> >>> We do for __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM though and I guess that it is expected to
> >>> see kswapd do the reclaim to balance the node. If the node is full of
> >>> anonymous pages then there is no other way than swap out.
> >>
> >> GFP_TRANSHUGE implies __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM. When no madvise is given, THP is on
> >> + defrag=always, gfp_mask has __GFP_THISNODE and __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, so swapping
> >> can be triggered.
> >
> > Yes, but the setup tells that you are willing to pay price to get a THP.
> > defered=always uses that special __GFP_NORETRY (unless it is madvised
> > mapping) that should back off if the compaction failed recently. How
> > much that reduces the reclaim is not really clear to me right now to be
> > honest.
> >
> >> The key issue here is that “memhog -r3 130g” uses the default memory policy (MPOL_DEFAULT),
> >> which should allow page allocation fallback to other nodes, but as shown in
> >> result 3, swapping is triggered instead of page allocation fallback.
> >
> > Well, I guess this really depends. Fallback to a different node might be
> > seen as a bad thing and worse than the reclaim on the local node.
> >
> >>>> __THIS_NODE uses ZONELIST_NOFALLBACK, which
> >>>> removes the fallback possibility and __GFP_*_RECLAIM triggers page
> >>>> reclaim in the first page allocation node when fallback nodes are
> >>>> removed by ZONELIST_NOFALLBACK.
> >>>
> >>> Yes but the point is that the allocations which use __GFP_THISNODE are
> >>> optimistic so they shouldn't fallback to remote NUMA nodes.
> >>
> >> This can be achieved by using MPOL_BIND memory policy which restricts
> >> nodemask in struct alloc_context for user space memory allocations.
> >
> > Yes, but that requires and explicit NUMA handling. And we are trying to
> > handle those cases which do not really give a damn and just want to use
> > THP if it is available or try harder when they ask by using madvise.
> >
> >>>> IMHO, __THIS_NODE should not be used for user memory allocation at
> >>>> all, since it fights against most of memory policies. But kernel
> >>>> memory allocation would need it as a kernel MPOL_BIND memory policy.
> >>>
> >>> __GFP_THISNODE is indeed an ugliness. I would really love to get rid of
> >>> it here. But the problem is that optimistic THP allocations should
> >>> prefer a local node because a remote node might easily offset the
> >>> advantage of the THP. I do not have a great idea how to achieve that
> >>> without __GFP_THISNODE though.
> >>
> >> MPOL_PREFERRED memory policy can be used to achieve this optimistic
> >> THP allocation for user space. Even with the default memory policy,
> >> local memory node will be used first until it is full. It seems to
> >> me that __GFP_THISNODE is not necessary if a proper memory policy is
> >> used.
> >>
> >> Let me know if I miss anything. Thanks.
> >
> > You are missing that we are trying to define a sensible model for those
> > who do not really care about mempolicies. THP shouldn't cause more harm
> > than good for those.
> >
> > I wish we could come up with a remotely sane and comprehensible model.
> > That means that you know how hard the allocator tries to get a THP for
> > you depending on the defrag configuration, your memory policy and your
> > madvise setting. The easiest one I can think of is to
> > - always follow mempolicy when specified because you asked for it
> > explicitly
> > - stay node local and low latency for the light THP defrag mode (defrag,
> > madvise without hint and none) because THP is a nice to have
> > - if the defrag mode is always then you are willing to pay the latency
> > price but off-node might be still a no-no.
> > - allow fallback for madvised mappings because you really want THP. If
> > you care about specific numa placement then combine with the
> > mempolicy.
> >
> > As you can see I do not really mention anything about the direct reclaim
> > because that is just an implementation detail of the page allocator and
> > compaction interaction.
> >
> > Maybe you can formulate a saner matrix with all the available modes that
> > we have.
> >
> > Anyway, I guess we can agree that (almost) unconditional __GFP_THISNODE
> > is clearly wrong and we should address that first. Either Andrea's
> > option 2) patch or mine which does the similar thing except at the
> > proper layer (I believe). We can continue discussing other odd cases on
> > top I guess. Unless somebody has much brighter idea, of course.
>
> Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense to me. I am fine with your patch.
> You can add my Tested-by: Zi Yan <zi.yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, since
> my test result 1 shows that the problem mentioned in your changelog is solved.
Thanks for your and Stefan's testing. I will wait for some more
feedback. I will be offline next few days and if there are no major
objections I will repost with both tested-bys early next week.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
