On Tue 10-09-19 10:38:25, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> Am 10.09.19 um 10:29 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > On Tue 10-09-19 07:56:36, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 09.09.19 um 14:56 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG:
> >>> Am 09.09.19 um 14:49 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> >>>> On Mon 09-09-19 14:37:52, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 09.09.19 um 14:28 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> >>>>>> On Mon 09-09-19 14:10:02, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 09.09.19 um 14:08 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon 09-09-19 13:01:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> and that matches moments when we reclaimed memory. There seems to be a
> >>>>>>>>> steady THP allocations flow so maybe this is a source of the direct
> >>>>>>>>> reclaim?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I was thinking about this some more and THP being a source of reclaim
> >>>>>>>> sounds quite unlikely. At least in a default configuration because we
> >>>>>>>> shouldn't do anything expensinve in the #PF path. But there might be a
> >>>>>>>> difference source of high order (!costly) allocations. Could you check
> >>>>>>>> how many allocation requests like that you have on your system?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mount -t debugfs none /debug
> >>>>>>>> echo "order > 0" > /debug/tracing/events/kmem/mm_page_alloc/filter
> >>>>>>>> echo 1 > /debug/tracing/events/kmem/mm_page_alloc/enable
> >>>>>>>> cat /debug/tracing/trace_pipe > $file
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> echo 1 > /debug/tracing/events/vmscan/mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_begin/enable
> >>>>>> echo 1 > /debug/tracing/events/vmscan/mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_end/enable
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> might tell us something as well but it might turn out that it just still
> >>>>>> doesn't give us the full picture and we might need
> >>>>>> echo stacktrace > /debug/tracing/trace_options
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It will generate much more output though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just now or when PSI raises?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When the excessive reclaim is happening ideally.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This one is from a server with 28G memfree but memory pressure is still
> >>>>> jumping between 0 and 10%.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I did:
> >>>>> echo "order > 0" >
> >>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/kmem/mm_page_alloc/filter
> >>>>>
> >>>>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/kmem/mm_page_alloc/enable
> >>>>>
> >>>>> echo 1 >
> >>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/vmscan/mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_begin/enable
> >>>>>
> >>>>> echo 1 >
> >>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/vmscan/mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_end/enable
> >>>>>
> >>>>> timeout 120 cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe > /trace
> >>>>>
> >>>>> File attached.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no reclaim captured in this trace dump.
> >>>> $ zcat trace1.gz | sed 's@.*\(order=[0-9]\).*\(gfp_flags=.*\)@\1 \2@' | sort | uniq -c
> >>>> 777 order=1 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 663 order=1 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 153 order=1 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 911 order=1 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT|__GFP_ZERO
> >>>> 4872 order=1 gfp_flags=GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ACCOUNT
> >>>> 62 order=1 gfp_flags=GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 14 order=2 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP
> >>>> 11 order=2 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_RECLAIMABLE
> >>>> 1263 order=2 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 45 order=2 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC|__GFP_RECLAIMABLE
> >>>> 1 order=2 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO
> >>>> 7853 order=2 gfp_flags=GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ACCOUNT
> >>>> 73 order=3 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 729 order=3 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC|__GFP_RECLAIMABLE
> >>>> 528 order=3 gfp_flags=__GFP_IO|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 1203 order=3 gfp_flags=GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ACCOUNT
> >>>> 5295 order=3 gfp_flags=GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP
> >>>> 1 order=3 gfp_flags=GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 132 order=3 gfp_flags=GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC
> >>>> 13 order=5 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO
> >>>> 1 order=6 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_NOWARN|__GFP_NORETRY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO
> >>>> 1232 order=9 gfp_flags=GFP_TRANSHUGE
> >>>> 108 order=9 gfp_flags=GFP_TRANSHUGE|__GFP_THISNODE
> >>>> 362 order=9 gfp_flags=GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT|__GFP_THISNODE
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing really stands out because except for the THP ones none of others
> >>>> are going to even be using movable zone.
> >>> It might be that this is not an ideal example is was just the fastest i
> >>> could find. May be we really need one with much higher pressure.
> >>
> >> here another trace log where a system has 30GB free memory but is under
> >> constant pressure and does not build up any file cache caused by memory
> >> pressure.
> >
> > So the reclaim is clearly induced by THP allocations
> > $ zgrep vmscan trace2.gz | grep gfp_flags | sed 's@.*\(gfp_flags=.*\) .*@\1@' | sort | uniq -c
> > 1580 gfp_flags=GFP_TRANSHUGE
> > 15 gfp_flags=GFP_TRANSHUGE|__GFP_THISNODE
> >
> > $ zgrep vmscan trace2.gz | grep nr_reclaimed | sed 's@nr_reclaimed=@@' | awk '{nr+=$6+0}END{print nr}'
> > 1541726
> >
> > 6GB of memory reclaimed in 1776s. That is a lot! But the THP allocation
> > rate is really high as well
> > $ zgrep "page_alloc.*GFP_TRANSHUGE" trace2.gz | wc -l
> > 15340
> >
> > this is 30GB worth of THPs (some of them might get released of course).
> > Also only 10% of requests ends up reclaiming.
> >
> > One additional interesting point
> > $ zgrep vmscan trace2.gz | grep nr_reclaimed | sed 's@.*nr_reclaimed=\([[0-9]*\)@\1@' | calc_min_max.awk
> > min: 1.00 max: 2792.00 avg: 965.99 std: 331.12 nr: 1596
> >
> > Even though the std is high there are quite some outliers when a lot of
> > memory is reclaimed.
> >
> > Which kernel version is this. And again, what is the THP configuration.
>
> This is 4.19.66 regarding THP you mean this:
Do you see the same behavior with 5.3?
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/defrag:always defer [defer+madvise]
> madvise never
>
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled:[always] madvise never
>
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hpage_pmd_size:2097152
>
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/shmem_enabled:always within_size
> advise [never] deny force
>
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/use_zero_page:1
>
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled was madvise until yesterday
> where i tried to switch to defer+madvise - which didn't help.
Many processes hitting the reclaim are php5 others I cannot say because
their cmd is not reflected in the trace. I suspect those are using
madvise. I haven't really seen kcompactd interfering much. That would
suggest using defer.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
