On Mon 20-03-23 15:32:15, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:21:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 20-03-23 15:03:33, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > A customer provided evidence indicating that a process
> > > was stalled in direct reclaim:
> > >
> > > - The process was trapped in throttle_direct_reclaim().
> > > The function wait_event_killable() was called to wait condition
> > > allow_direct_reclaim(pgdat) for current node to be true.
> > > The allow_direct_reclaim(pgdat) examined the number of free pages
> > > on the node by zone_page_state() which just returns value in
> > > zone->vm_stat[NR_FREE_PAGES].
> > >
> > > - On node #1, zone->vm_stat[NR_FREE_PAGES] was 0.
> > > However, the freelist on this node was not empty.
> > >
> > > - This inconsistent of vmstat value was caused by percpu vmstat on
> > > nohz_full cpus. Every increment/decrement of vmstat is performed
> > > on percpu vmstat counter at first, then pooled diffs are cumulated
> > > to the zone's vmstat counter in timely manner. However, on nohz_full
> > > cpus (in case of this customer's system, 48 of 52 cpus) these pooled
> > > diffs were not cumulated once the cpu had no event on it so that
> > > the cpu started sleeping infinitely.
> > > I checked percpu vmstat and found there were total 69 counts not
> > > cumulated to the zone's vmstat counter yet.
> > >
> > > - In this situation, kswapd did not help the trapped process.
> > > In pgdat_balanced(), zone_wakermark_ok_safe() examined the number
> > > of free pages on the node by zone_page_state_snapshot() which
> > > checks pending counts on percpu vmstat.
> > > Therefore kswapd could know there were 69 free pages correctly.
> > > Since zone->_watermark = {8, 20, 32}, kswapd did not work because
> > > 69 was greater than 32 as high watermark.
> > >
> > > Change allow_direct_reclaim to use zone_page_state_snapshot, which
> > > allows a more precise version of the vmstat counters to be used.
> > >
> > > allow_direct_reclaim will only be called from try_to_free_pages,
> > > which is not a hot path.
> >
> > Have you managed to test this patch to confirm it addresses the above
> > issue? It should but better double check that.
> >
> > > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The patch makes sense regardless but a note about testing should be
> > added.
> >
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Michal,
>
> The patch has not been tested in the original setup where the problem
> was found, however i don't think its easy to do that validation
> (checking with the reporter anyway).
This is a fair point and I would just add it to the changelog for the
future reference.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
