(2011/05/24 17:30), Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:54:54PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> >From 8bd3f16736548375238161d1bd85f7d7c381031f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 01:37:41 +0900
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Prevent unending loop in __alloc_pages_slowpath
>>>
>>> From: Andrew Barry <abarry@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> I believe I found a problem in __alloc_pages_slowpath, which allows a process to
>>> get stuck endlessly looping, even when lots of memory is available.
>>>
>>> Running an I/O and memory intensive stress-test I see a 0-order page allocation
>>> with __GFP_IO and __GFP_WAIT, running on a system with very little free memory.
>>> Right about the same time that the stress-test gets killed by the OOM-killer,
>>> the utility trying to allocate memory gets stuck in __alloc_pages_slowpath even
>>> though most of the systems memory was freed by the oom-kill of the stress-test.
>>>
>>> The utility ends up looping from the rebalance label down through the
>>> wait_iff_congested continiously. Because order=0, __alloc_pages_direct_compact
>>> skips the call to get_page_from_freelist. Because all of the reclaimable memory
>>> on the system has already been reclaimed, __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim skips the
>>> call to get_page_from_freelist. Since there is no __GFP_FS flag, the block with
>>> __alloc_pages_may_oom is skipped. The loop hits the wait_iff_congested, then
>>> jumps back to rebalance without ever trying to get_page_from_freelist. This loop
>>> repeats infinitely.
>>>
>>> The test case is pretty pathological. Running a mix of I/O stress-tests that do
>>> a lot of fork() and consume all of the system memory, I can pretty reliably hit
>>> this on 600 nodes, in about 12 hours. 32GB/node.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Barry <abarry@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> index 3f8bce2..e78b324 100644
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -2064,6 +2064,7 @@ restart:
>>> first_zones_zonelist(zonelist, high_zoneidx, NULL,
>>> &preferred_zone);
>>>
>>> +rebalance:
>>> /* This is the last chance, in general, before the goto nopage. */
>>> page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, nodemask, order, zonelist,
>>> high_zoneidx, alloc_flags & ~ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS,
>>> @@ -2071,7 +2072,6 @@ restart:
>>> if (page)
>>> goto got_pg;
>>>
>>> -rebalance:
>>> /* Allocate without watermarks if the context allows */
>>> if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS) {
>>> page = __alloc_pages_high_priority(gfp_mask, order,
>>
>> I'm sorry I missed this thread long time.
>>
>> In this case, I think we should call drain_all_pages().
>
> Why?
Otherwise, we don't have good PCP dropping trigger. Big machine might have
big pcp cache.
> If the direct reclaimer failed to reclaim any pages on its own, the call
> to get_page_from_freelist() is going to be useless and there is
> no guarantee that any other CPU managed to reclaim pages either. All
> this ends up doing is sending in IPI which if it's very lucky will take
> a page from another CPUs free list.
It's no matter. because did_some_progress==0 mean vmscan failed to reclaim
any pages and reach priority==0. Thus, it obviously slow path.
>
>> then following
>> patch is better.
>> However I also think your patch is valuable. because while the task is
>> sleeping in wait_iff_congested(), an another task may free some pages.
>> thus, rebalance path should try to get free pages. iow, you makes sense.
>>
>> So, I'd like to propose to merge both your and my patch.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> From 2e77784668f6ca53d88ecb46aa6b99d9d0f33ffa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:41:57 +0900
>> Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: remove painful micro optimization
>>
>> Currently, __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim() call get_page_from_freelist()
>> only if try_to_free_pages() return !0.
>>
>> It's no necessary micro optimization becauase "return 0" mean vmscan reached
>> priority 0 and didn't get any pages, iow, it's really slow path. But also it
>> has bad side effect. If we don't call drain_all_pages(), we have a chance to
>> get infinite loop.
>>
>
> With the "rebalance" patch, where is the infinite loop?
I wrote the above.
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>