On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 12:40:15PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:05 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Direct reclaim stats are useful for identifying a potential source for
> > application latency, as well as spotting issues with kswapd. However,
> > khugepaged currently distorts the picture: as a kernel thread it
> > doesn't impose allocation latencies on userspace, and it explicitly
> > opts out of kswapd reclaim. Its activity showing up in the direct
> > reclaim stats is misleading. Counting it as kswapd reclaim could also
> > cause confusion when trying to understand actual kswapd behavior.
> >
> > Break out khugepaged from the direct reclaim counters into new
> > pgsteal_khugepaged, pgdemote_khugepaged, pgscan_khugepaged counters.
> >
> > Test with a huge executable (CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS):
> >
> > pgsteal_kswapd 1342185
> > pgsteal_direct 0
> > pgsteal_khugepaged 3623
> > pgscan_kswapd 1345025
> > pgscan_direct 0
> > pgscan_khugepaged 3623
>
> There are other kernel threads or works may allocate memory then
> trigger memory reclaim, there may be similar problems for them and
> someone may try to add a new stat. So how's about we make the stats
> more general, for example, call it "pg{steal|scan}_kthread"?
I'm not convinved that's a good idea.
Can you generally say that userspace isn't indirectly waiting for one
of those allocating threads? With khugepaged, we know.
And those other allocations are usually ___GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM, so if
they do direct reclaim, we'd probably want to know that kswapd is
failing to keep up (doubly so if userspace is waiting). In a shared
kthread counter, khugepaged would again muddy the waters.
