Byungchul Park <byungchul@xxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 05:36:01PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:06:30PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > [CC Mel, Vlastimil and Johannes for awareness]
>> >
>> > On Fri 23-02-24 14:44:07, Byungchul Park wrote:
>> > > Changes from v2:
>> > > 1. Change the condition to stop cache_trim_mode.
>> > >
>> > > From - Stop it if it's at high scan priorities, 0 or 1.
>> > > To - Stop it if it's at high scan priorities, 0 or 1, and
>> > > the mode didn't work in the previous turn.
>> > >
>> > > (feedbacked by Huang Ying)
>> > >
>> > > 2. Change the test result in the commit message after testing
>> > > with the new logic.
>> > >
>> > > Changes from v1:
>> > > 1. Add a comment describing why this change is necessary in code
>> > > and rewrite the commit message with how to reproduce and what
>> > > the result is using vmstat. (feedbacked by Andrew Morton and
>> > > Yu Zhao)
>> > > 2. Change the condition to avoid cache_trim_mode from
>> > > 'sc->priority != 1' to 'sc->priority > 1' to reflect cases
>> > > where the priority goes to zero all the way. (feedbacked by
>> > > Yu Zhao)
>> > >
>> > > --->8---
>> > > >From 05846e34bf02ac9b3e254324dc2d7afd97a025d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@xxxxxx>
>> > > Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:47:16 +0900
>> > > Subject: [PATCH v3] mm, vmscan: do not turn on cache_trim_mode if it doesn't work
>> > >
>> > > With cache_trim_mode on, reclaim logic doesn't bother reclaiming anon
>> > > pages. However, it should be more careful to turn on the mode because
>> > > it's going to prevent anon pages from being reclaimed even if there are
>> > > a huge number of anon pages that are cold and should be reclaimed. Even
>> > > worse, that leads kswapd_failures to reach MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES and
>> > > stopping kswapd from functioning until direct reclaim eventually works
>> > > to resume kswapd.
>> > >
>> > > So do not turn on cache_trim_mode if the mode doesn't work, especially
>> > > while the sytem is struggling against reclaim.
>> > >
>> > > The problematic behavior can be reproduced by:
>> > >
>> > > CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING enabled
>> > > sysctl_numa_balancing_mode set to NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING
>> > > numa node0 (8GB local memory, 16 CPUs)
>> > > numa node1 (8GB slow tier memory, no CPUs)
>> > >
>> > > Sequence:
>> > >
>> > > 1) echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>> > > 2) To emulate the system with full of cold memory in local DRAM, run
>> > > the following dummy program and never touch the region:
>> > >
>> > > mmap(0, 8 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
>> > > MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_POPULATE, -1, 0);
>> > >
>> > > 3) Run any memory intensive work e.g. XSBench.
>> > > 4) Check if numa balancing is working e.i. promotion/demotion.
>> > > 5) Iterate 1) ~ 4) until numa balancing stops.
>> > >
>> > > With this, you could see that promotion/demotion are not working because
>> > > kswapd has stopped due to ->kswapd_failures >= MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES.
>> > >
>> > > Interesting vmstat delta's differences between before and after are like:
>> > >
>> > > +-----------------------+-------------------------------+
>> > > | interesting vmstat | before | after |
>> > > +-----------------------+-------------------------------+
>> > > | nr_inactive_anon | 321935 | 1636737 |
>> > > | nr_active_anon | 1780700 | 465913 |
>> > > | nr_inactive_file | 30425 | 35711 |
>> > > | nr_active_file | 14961 | 8698 |
>> > > | pgpromote_success | 356 | 1267785 |
>> > > | pgpromote_candidate | 21953245 | 1745631 |
>> > > | pgactivate | 1844523 | 3309867 |
>> > > | pgdeactivate | 50634 | 1545041 |
>> > > | pgfault | 31100294 | 6411036 |
>> > > | pgdemote_kswapd | 30856 | 2267467 |
>> > > | pgscan_kswapd | 1861981 | 7729231 |
>> > > | pgscan_anon | 1822930 | 7667544 |
>> > > | pgscan_file | 39051 | 61687 |
>> > > | pgsteal_anon | 386 | 2227217 |
>> > > | pgsteal_file | 30470 | 40250 |
>> > > | pageoutrun | 30 | 457 |
>> > > | numa_hint_faults | 27418279 | 2752289 |
>> > > | numa_pages_migrated | 356 | 1267785 |
>> > > +-----------------------+-------------------------------+
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul@xxxxxx>
>> > > ---
>> > > mm/vmscan.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>> > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > > index bba207f41b14..f7312d831fed 100644
>> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > > @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ struct scan_control {
>> > > /* One of the zones is ready for compaction */
>> > > unsigned int compaction_ready:1;
>> > >
>> > > + /* If the last try was reclaimable */
>> > > + unsigned int reclaimable:1;
>> > > +
>> > > /* There is easily reclaimable cold cache in the current node */
>> > > unsigned int cache_trim_mode:1;
>> > >
>> > > @@ -2266,9 +2269,14 @@ static void prepare_scan_control(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>> > > * If we have plenty of inactive file pages that aren't
>> > > * thrashing, try to reclaim those first before touching
>> > > * anonymous pages.
>> > > + *
>> > > + * It doesn't make sense to keep cache_trim_mode on if the mode
>> > > + * is not working while struggling against reclaim. So do not
>> > > + * turn it on if so. Note the highest priority of kswapd is 1.
>> > > */
>> > > file = lruvec_page_state(target_lruvec, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
>> > > - if (file >> sc->priority && !(sc->may_deactivate & DEACTIVATE_FILE))
>> > > + if (file >> sc->priority && !(sc->may_deactivate & DEACTIVATE_FILE) &&
>> > > + !(sc->cache_trim_mode && !sc->reclaimable && sc->priority <= 1))
>> > > sc->cache_trim_mode = 1;
>> > > else
>> > > sc->cache_trim_mode = 0;
>>
>> The overall goal makes sense to me.
>>
>> file >> priority is just a heuristic that there are enough potential
>> candidate pages, not a guarantee that any forward progress will
>> happen. So it makes sense to retry without before failing.
>>
>> The way you wrote this conditional kind of hurts my head,
>> though. Please don't write negations of complex terms like this.
>
> Okay. I won't.
>
>> It expands to this:
>>
>> !sc->cache_trim_mode || sc->reclaimable || sc->priority > 1
>>
>> which I'm not sure makes sense. Surely it should be something like
>>
>> !sc->cache_trim_mode && sc->reclaimable && sc->priority > 1
>
> It's a totally different condition as you know.
>
>> instead?
>>
>> Also
>>
>> if (!sc->cache_trim_mode)
>> sc->cache_trim_mode = 1
>> else
>> sc->cache_trim_mode = 0
>>
>> will toggle on every loop. So if direct reclaim runs through a
>> zonelist, it'll cache trim every other numa node...?
>
> No way to toggle on every loop.
>
> What I tried was that:
>
> 1. Don't turn it on again if it didn't work in the previous try.
> 2. Let it go as it was if the priority is not that high though,
> to keep the code as conservatively as possible.
>
> So again, the following condition is needed.
>
> (the original condition) &&
> (!sc->cache_trim_mode || sc->reclaimable || sc->priority > 1)
>
>> > > @@ -5862,7 +5870,6 @@ static void shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>> > > {
>> > > unsigned long nr_reclaimed, nr_scanned, nr_node_reclaimed;
>> > > struct lruvec *target_lruvec;
>> > > - bool reclaimable = false;
>> > >
>> > > if (lru_gen_enabled() && root_reclaim(sc)) {
>> > > lru_gen_shrink_node(pgdat, sc);
>> > > @@ -5877,6 +5884,14 @@ static void shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>> > > nr_reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
>> > > nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
>> > >
>> > > + /*
>> > > + * Reset to the default values at the start.
>> > > + */
>> > > + if (sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY) {
>
> This might need to be fixed if reclaim happens to start with other than
> DEF_PRIORITY. For now, reclaim always starts with the priority though.
>
>> > > + sc->reclaimable = 1;
>> > > + sc->cache_trim_mode = 0;
>> > > + }
>
> For each shrink_node(), initialize all the variable at the start.
>
>> > > +
>> > > prepare_scan_control(pgdat, sc);
>> > >
>> > > shrink_node_memcgs(pgdat, sc);
>> > > @@ -5890,8 +5905,7 @@ static void shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>> > > vmpressure(sc->gfp_mask, sc->target_mem_cgroup, true,
>> > > sc->nr_scanned - nr_scanned, nr_node_reclaimed);
>> > >
>> > > - if (nr_node_reclaimed)
>> > > - reclaimable = true;
>> > > + sc->reclaimable = !!nr_node_reclaimed;
>>
>> The scope of this doesn't quite make sense. If direct reclaim scans
>> multiple nodes, reclaim failure on the first node would disable cache
>> trim mode on the second node, which is totally unrelated.
>
> As I mentioned, reclaim for every node would start with an initialized
> value because *each node is totally unrelated to another*.
No. Please take a look at do_try_to_free_pages(), for each priority, it
will iterate every node. But fortunately, we may not need this
heuristics for direct reclaiming.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
