On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:39 PM Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Zhongkun,
>
> On 7/23/24 1:32 PM, Zhongkun He Wrote:
> > I found a problem in my test machine that the memory of a process is
> > repeatedly migrated between two nodes and does not stop.
> >
> > 1.Test step and the machines.
> > ------------
> > VM machine: 4 numa nodes and 10GB per node.
> >
> > stress --vm 1 --vm-bytes 12g --vm-keep
> >
> > The info of numa stat:
> > while :;do cat memory.numa_stat | grep -w anon;sleep 5;done
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10250747904 N3=2634334208
>
> I am curious what was the exact reason made the worker migrated
> to N3? And later...
The maximum capacity of each node is 10 GB， but it requires 12GB,
so there's always 2G on other nodes. With the patch below we only
have page_faults in other nodes, not local. so we will migrate pages
to other nodes because p->numa_preferred_nid is always the other node.
>
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10250747904 N3=2634334208
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=9937256448 N3=2947825664
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=8863514624 N3=4021567488
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=7789772800 N3=5095309312
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=6716030976 N3=6169051136
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5642289152 N3=7242792960
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5105442816 N3=7779639296
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5105442816 N3=7779639296
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=4837007360 N3=8048074752
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=3763265536 N3=9121816576
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2689523712 N3=10195558400
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2515148800 N3=10369933312
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2515148800 N3=10369933312
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=2515148800 N3=10369933312
>
> .. why it was moved back to N2?
The private page_faults on N2 are larger than that on N3.
>
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=3320455168 N3=9564626944
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=4394196992 N3=8490885120
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=5105442816 N3=7779639296
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=6174195712 N3=6710886400
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=7247937536 N3=5637144576
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=8321679360 N3=4563402752
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=9395421184 N3=3489660928
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10247872512 N3=2637209600
> > anon N0=98304 N1=0 N2=10247872512 N3=2637209600
> >
> > 2. Root cause:
> > Since commit 3e32158767b0 ("mm/mprotect.c: don't touch single threaded
> > PTEs which are on the right node")the PTE of local pages will not be
> > changed in change_pte_range() for single-threaded process, so no
> > page_faults information will be generated in do_numa_page(). If a
> > single-threaded process has memory on another node, it will
> > unconditionally migrate all of it's local memory to that node,
> > even if the remote node has only one page.
>
> IIUC the remote pages will be moved to the node where the worker
> is running since local (private) PTEs are not set to protnone and
> won't be faulted on.
>
Yes.
> >
> > So, let's fix it. The memory of single-threaded process should follow
> > the cpu, not the numa faults info in order to avoid memory thrashing.
>
> Don't forget the 'Fixes' tag for bugfix patches :)
OK, thanks.
>
> >
> > ...>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 24dda708b699..d7cbbda568fb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -2898,6 +2898,12 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p)
> > numa_group_count_active_nodes(ng);
> > spin_unlock_irq(group_lock);
> > max_nid = preferred_group_nid(p, max_nid);
> > + } else if (atomic_read(&p->mm->mm_users) == 1) {
> > + /*
> > + * The memory of a single-threaded process should
> > + * follow the CPU in order to avoid memory thrashing.
> > + */
> > + max_nid = numa_node_id();
> > }
> >
> > if (max_faults) {
>
> Since you don't want to respect the faults info, can we simply
> skip task placement?
This is a good suggestion. It would be even better if there were some
feedback from others.
