Hi Kosaki,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:35 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
>
>> Nick's original goal is to prevent OOM killing until all zone we're
>> interested in are unreclaimable and whether zone is reclaimable or not
>> depends on kswapd. And Nick's original solution is just peeking
>> zone->all_unreclaimable but I made it dirty when we are considering
>> kswapd freeze in hibernation. So I think we still need it to handle
>> kswapd freeze problem and we should add original behavior we missed at
>> that time like below.
>>
>> static bool zone_reclaimable(struct zone *zone)
>> {
>> Â Â Â Â if (zone->all_unreclaimable)
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return false;
>>
>> Â Â Â Â return zone->pages_scanned < zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6;
>> }
>>
>> If you remove the logic, the problem Nick addressed would be showed
>> up, again. How about addressing the problem in your patch? If you
>> remove the logic, __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim lose the chance calling
>> dran_all_pages. Of course, it was a side effect but we should handle
>> it.
>
> Ok, you are successfull to persuade me. lost drain_all_pages() chance has
> a risk.
>
>> And my last concern is we are going on right way?
>
>
>> I think fundamental cause of this problem is page_scanned and
>> all_unreclaimable is race so isn't the approach fixing the race right
>> way?
>
> Hmm..
> If we can avoid lock, we should. I think. that's performance reason.
> therefore I'd like to cap the issue in do_try_to_free_pages(). it's
> slow path.
>
> Is the following patch acceptable to you? it is
> Âo rewrote the description
> Âo avoid mix to use zone->all_unreclaimable and zone->pages_scanned
> Âo avoid to reintroduce hibernation issue
> Âo don't touch fast path
>
>
>> If it is hard or very costly, your and my approach will be fallback.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> From f3d277057ad3a092aa1c94244f0ed0d3ebe5411c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 05:07:48 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: all_unreclaimable() use zone->all_unreclaimable as the name
>
> all_unreclaimable check in direct reclaim has been introduced at 2.6.19
> by following commit.
>
> Â Â Â Â2006 Sep 25; commit 408d8544; oom: use unreclaimable info
>
> And it went through strange history. firstly, following commit broke
> the logic unintentionally.
>
> Â Â Â Â2008 Apr 29; commit a41f24ea; page allocator: smarter retry of
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âcostly-order allocations
>
> Two years later, I've found obvious meaningless code fragment and
> restored original intention by following commit.
>
> Â Â Â Â2010 Jun 04; commit bb21c7ce; vmscan: fix do_try_to_free_pages()
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn value when priority==0
>
> But, the logic didn't works when 32bit highmem system goes hibernation
> and Minchan slightly changed the algorithm and fixed it .
>
> Â Â Â Â2010 Sep 22: commit d1908362: vmscan: check all_unreclaimable
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âin direct reclaim path
>
> But, recently, Andrey Vagin found the new corner case. Look,
>
> Â Â Â Âstruct zone {
> Â Â Â Â Â..
>        Âint           all_unreclaimable;
> Â Â Â Â Â..
>        Âunsigned long      pages_scanned;
> Â Â Â Â Â..
> Â Â Â Â}
>
> zone->all_unreclaimable and zone->pages_scanned are neigher atomic
> variables nor protected by lock. Therefore zones can become a state
> of zone->page_scanned=0 and zone->all_unreclaimable=1. In this case,
> current all_unreclaimable() return false even though
> zone->all_unreclaimabe=1.
>
> Is this ignorable minor issue? No. Unfortunatelly, x86 has very
> small dma zone and it become zone->all_unreclamble=1 easily. and
> if it become all_unreclaimable=1, it never restore all_unreclaimable=0.
> Why? if all_unreclaimable=1, vmscan only try DEF_PRIORITY reclaim and
> a-few-lru-pages>>DEF_PRIORITY always makes 0. that mean no page scan
> at all!
>
> Eventually, oom-killer never works on such systems. That said, we
> can't use zone->pages_scanned for this purpose. This patch restore
> all_unreclaimable() use zone->all_unreclaimable as old. and in addition,
> to add oom_killer_disabled check to avoid reintroduce the issue of
> commit d1908362.
>
> Reported-by: Andrey Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Âmm/vmscan.c | Â 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> Â1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 060e4c1..54ac548 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
> Â#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
> Â#include <linux/delayacct.h>
> Â#include <linux/sysctl.h>
> +#include <linux/oom.h>
>
> Â#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> Â#include <asm/div64.h>
> @@ -1988,17 +1989,12 @@ static bool zone_reclaimable(struct zone *zone)
> Â Â Â Âreturn zone->pages_scanned < zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6;
> Â}
>
> -/*
> - * As hibernation is going on, kswapd is freezed so that it can't mark
> - * the zone into all_unreclaimable. It can't handle OOM during hibernation.
> - * So let's check zone's unreclaimable in direct reclaim as well as kswapd.
> - */
> +/* All zones in zonelist are unreclaimable? */
> Âstatic bool all_unreclaimable(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âstruct scan_control *sc)
> Â{
> Â Â Â Âstruct zoneref *z;
> Â Â Â Âstruct zone *zone;
> - Â Â Â bool all_unreclaimable = true;
>
> Â Â Â Âfor_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, zonelist,
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âgfp_zone(sc->gfp_mask), sc->nodemask) {
> @@ -2006,13 +2002,11 @@ static bool all_unreclaimable(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âcontinue;
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âif (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âcontinue;
> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if (zone_reclaimable(zone)) {
> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â all_unreclaimable = false;
> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â break;
> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â }
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if (!zone->all_unreclaimable)
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return false;
> Â Â Â Â}
>
> - Â Â Â return all_unreclaimable;
> + Â Â Â return true;
> Â}
>
> Â/*
> @@ -2108,6 +2102,14 @@ out:
> Â Â Â Âif (sc->nr_reclaimed)
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn sc->nr_reclaimed;
>
> + Â Â Â /*
> + Â Â Â Â* As hibernation is going on, kswapd is freezed so that it can't mark
> + Â Â Â Â* the zone into all_unreclaimable. Thus bypassing all_unreclaimable
> + Â Â Â Â* check.
> + Â Â Â Â*/
> + Â Â Â if (oom_killer_disabled)
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return 0;
> +
> Â Â Â Â/* top priority shrink_zones still had more to do? don't OOM, then */
> Â Â Â Âif (scanning_global_lru(sc) && !all_unreclaimable(zonelist, sc))
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn 1;
> --
> 1.6.5.2
>
Thanks for your effort, Kosaki.
But I still doubt this patch is good.
This patch makes early oom killing in hibernation as it skip
all_unreclaimable check.
Normally, hibernation needs many memory so page_reclaim pressure
would be big in small memory system. So I don't like early give up.
Do you think my patch has a problem? Personally, I think it's very
simple and clear. :)
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href