On 7/31/19 5:06 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 7/24/19 7:50 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> For PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER allocations, MIN_COMPACT_COSTLY_PRIORITY is
>> minimum (highest priority). Other places in the compaction code key off
>> of MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY. Costly order allocations will never get to
>> MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY. Therefore, some conditions will never be met for
>> costly order allocations.
>>
>> This was observed when hugetlb allocations could stall for minutes or
>> hours when should_compact_retry() would return true more often then it
>> should. Specifically, this was in the case where compact_result was
>> COMPACT_DEFERRED and COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED and no progress was being
>> made.
>
> Hmm, the point of MIN_COMPACT_COSTLY_PRIORITY was that costly
> allocations will not reach the priority where compaction becomes too
> expensive. With your patch, they still don't reach that priority value,
> but are allowed to be thorough anyway, even sooner. That just seems like
> a wrong way to fix the problem.
Thanks Vlastimil, here is why I took the approach I did.
I instrumented some of the long stalls. Here is one common example:
should_compact_retry returned true 5000000 consecutive times. However,
the variable compaction_retries is zero. We never get to the code that
increments the compaction_retries count because compaction_made_progress
is false and compaction_withdrawn is true. As suggested earlier, I noted
why compaction_withdrawn is true. Of the 5000000 calls,
4921875 were COMPACT_DEFERRED
78125 were COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED
Note that 5000000/64(1 << COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT) == 78125
I then started looking into why COMPACT_DEFERRED and COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED
were being set/returned so often.
COMPACT_DEFERRED is set/returned in try_to_compact_pages. Specifically,
if (prio > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY
&& compaction_deferred(zone, order)) {
rc = max_t(enum compact_result, COMPACT_DEFERRED, rc);
continue;
}
COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED is set/returned in __compact_finished. Specifically,
if (compact_scanners_met(cc)) {
/* Let the next compaction start anew. */
reset_cached_positions(cc->zone);
/* ... */
if (cc->direct_compaction)
cc->zone->compact_blockskip_flush = true;
if (cc->whole_zone)
return COMPACT_COMPLETE;
else
return COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED;
}
In both cases, compact_priority being MIN_COMPACT_COSTLY_PRIORITY and not
being able to go to MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY caused the 'compaction_withdrawn'
result to be set/returned.
I do not know the subtleties of the compaction code, but it seems like
retrying in this manner does not make sense.
> If should_compact_retry() returns
> misleading results for costly allocations, then that should be fixed
> instead?
>
> Alternatively, you might want to say that hugetlb allocations are not
> like other random costly allocations, because the admin setting
> nr_hugepages is prepared to take the cost (I thought that was indicated
> by the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag, but seeing all the other users of it,
> I'm not sure anymore).
The example above, resulted in a stall of a little over 5 minutes. However,
I have seen them last for hours. Sure, the caller (admin for hugetlbfs)
knows there may be high costs. But, I think minutes/hours to try and allocate
a single huge page is too much. We should fail sooner that that.
> In that case should_compact_retry() could take
> __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL into account and allow MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY even for
> costly allocations.
I'll put something like this together to test.
--
Mike Kravetz
