On 2024/8/23 上午10:04, liuye wrote:
I'm sorry to bother you about that, but it looks like the following email send 7 days ago, did not receive a response from you. Do you mind having a look at this when you have a bit of free time please?Fixes: b2e18757f2c9 ("mm, vmscan: begin reclaiming pages on a per-node basis")Merged in 2016. Under what circumstances does it occur?User processe are requesting a large amount of memory and keep page active. Then a module continuously requests memory from ZONE_DMA32 area. Memory reclaim will be triggered due to ZONE_DMA32 watermark alarm reached. However pages in the LRU(active_anon) list are mostly from the ZONE_NORMAL area.Can you please describe how to reproduce this?Terminal 1: Construct to continuously increase pages active(anon). mkdir /tmp/memory mount -t tmpfs -o size=1024000M tmpfs /tmp/memory dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/memory/block bs=4M tail /tmp/memory/block Terminal 2: vmstat -a 1 active will increase. procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- -------cpu------- r b swpd free inact active si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st gu 1 0 0 1445623076 45898836 83646008 0 0 0 0 1807 1682 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445623076 43450228 86094616 0 0 0 0 1677 1468 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445623076 41003480 88541364 0 0 0 0 1985 2022 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445623076 38557088 90987756 0 0 0 4 1731 1544 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445623076 36109688 93435156 0 0 0 0 1755 1501 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445619552 33663256 95881632 0 0 0 0 2015 1678 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445619804 31217140 98327792 0 0 0 0 2058 2212 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445619804 28769988 100774944 0 0 0 0 1729 1585 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445619804 26322348 103222584 0 0 0 0 1774 1575 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0 0 1445619804 23875592 105669340 0 0 0 4 1738 1604 0 0 100 0 0 0 cat /proc/meminfo | head Active(anon) increase. MemTotal: 1579941036 kB MemFree: 1445618500 kB MemAvailable: 1453013224 kB Buffers: 6516 kB Cached: 128653956 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 118110812 kB Inactive: 11436620 kB Active(anon): 115345744 kB Inactive(anon): 945292 kB When the Active(anon) is 115345744 kB, insmod module triggers the ZONE_DMA32 watermark. perf show nr_scanned=28835844. 28835844 * 4k = 115343376KB approximately equal to 115345744 kB. perf record -e vmscan:mm_vmscan_lru_isolate -aR perf script isolate_mode=0 classzone=1 order=1 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=2 nr_skipped=2 nr_taken=0 lru=active_anon isolate_mode=0 classzone=1 order=1 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=0 nr_skipped=0 nr_taken=0 lru=active_anon isolate_mode=0 classzone=1 order=0 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=28835844 nr_skipped=28835844 nr_taken=0 lru=active_anon isolate_mode=0 classzone=1 order=1 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=28835844 nr_skipped=28835844 nr_taken=0 lru=active_anon isolate_mode=0 classzone=1 order=0 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=29 nr_skipped=29 nr_taken=0 lru=active_anon isolate_mode=0 classzone=1 order=0 nr_requested=32 nr_scanned=0 nr_skipped=0 nr_taken=0 lru=active_anon If increase Active(anon) to 1000G then insmod module triggers the ZONE_DMA32 watermark. hard lockup will occur. In my device nr_scanned = 0000000003e3e937 when hard lockup. Convert to memory size 0x0000000003e3e937 * 4KB = 261072092 KB. #5 [ffffc90006fb7c28] isolate_lru_folios at ffffffffa597df53 ffffc90006fb7c30: 0000000000000020 0000000000000000 ffffc90006fb7c40: ffffc90006fb7d40 ffff88812cbd3000 ffffc90006fb7c50: ffffc90006fb7d30 0000000106fb7de8 ffffc90006fb7c60: ffffea04a2197008 ffffea0006ed4a48 ffffc90006fb7c70: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffffc90006fb7c80: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffffc90006fb7c90: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffffc90006fb7ca0: 0000000000000000 0000000003e3e937 ffffc90006fb7cb0: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffffc90006fb7cc0: 8d7c0b56b7874b00 ffff88812cbd3000Why do you think it took eight years to be discovered?The problem requires the following conditions to occur: 1. The device memory should be large enough. 2. Pages in the LRU(active_anon) list are mostly from the ZONE_NORMAL area. 3. The memory in ZONE_DMA32 needs to reach the watermark. If the memory is not large enough, or if the usage design of ZONE_DMA32 area memory is reasonable, this problem is difficult to detect. notes: The problem is most likely to occur in ZONE_DMA32 and ZONE_NORMAL, but other suitable scenarios may also trigger the problem.It looks like that will fix, but perhaps something more fundamental needs to be done - we're doing a tremendous amount of pretty pointless work here. Answers to my above questions will help us resolve this. Thanks.Please refer to the above explanation for details. Thanks.Thanks.
Friendly ping.
