On 2024/11/1 16:49, 解 咏梅 wrote:
> Hi Barry & Ridong
>
> Small change for your solution. Below is my navie idea :P
>
> func shrink_page_list()
> {
> loop for iterate the pages on page_list {
> if (page is compound_page && page size > 32 * 4k)
> try_lock(page);
> call split_folio_to_list
> return; // let move_folios_to_lru to push those splited pages back to the head of lru. and wait for the subsequent scan to handle those splited pages one by one
> }
> }
>
> BTW: page_unlock is called after folio_start_writeback. if swap backend is based on memory, it's synced I/O and __end_swap_bio_write will be called before the next try_lock(page) after pageout.
> That means, there's no racing between folio_end_writeback and shrink_page_list for synced swapout.
>
Hi, Yongmei,
Sorry for the later reply, I have been busy with other job for while.
As Barry said: "We should ensure that pageout() is always called for all
subpages, regardless of whether an mTHP is split". Your solution will
not satisfy this either.
I am trying to follow Barry's suggestion to adjust how the folio_list
is returned to the LRU. If the pages have been writeback completely,
move them to the tail of lru.
Thanks,
Ridong
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:09 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 10:56 PM chenridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/10/21 17:42, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 9:14 PM Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024/10/21 12:44, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 7:49 PM chenridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024/10/11 0:17, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 4:59 PM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Ridong,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This should be the first version for upstream, and the issue only
>>>>>>>>> occurred when large folio is spited.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adding more CCs to see if there's more feedback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2024/10/10 16:18, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An issue was found with the following testing step:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Compile with CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Mount memcg v1, and create memcg named test_memcg and set
>>>>>>>>>> usage_in_bytes=2.1G, memsw.usage_in_bytes=3G.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Create a 1G swap file, and allocate 2.2G anon memory in test_memcg.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was found that:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cat memory.usage_in_bytes
>>>>>>>>>> 2144940032
>>>>>>>>>> cat memory.memsw.usage_in_bytes
>>>>>>>>>> 2255056896
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> free -h
>>>>>>>>>> total used free
>>>>>>>>>> Mem: 31Gi 2.1Gi 27Gi
>>>>>>>>>> Swap: 1.0Gi 618Mi 405Mi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As shown above, the test_memcg used about 100M swap, but 600M+ swap memory
>>>>>>>>>> was used, which means that 500M may be wasted because other memcgs can not
>>>>>>>>>> use these swap memory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It can be explained as follows:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. When entering shrink_inactive_list, it isolates folios from lru from
>>>>>>>>>> tail to head. If it just takes folioN from lru(make it simple).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> inactive lru: folio1<->folio2<->folio3...<->folioN-1
>>>>>>>>>> isolated list: folioN
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. In shrink_page_list function, if folioN is THP, it may be splited and
>>>>>>>>>> added to swap cache folio by folio. After adding to swap cache, it will
>>>>>>>>>> submit io to writeback folio to swap, which is asynchronous.
>>>>>>>>>> When shrink_page_list is finished, the isolated folios list will be
>>>>>>>>>> moved back to the head of inactive lru. The inactive lru may just look
>>>>>>>>>> like this, with 512 filioes have been move to the head of inactive lru.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> folioN512<->folioN511<->...filioN1<->folio1<->folio2...<->folioN-1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. When folio writeback io is completed, the folio may be rotated to tail
>>>>>>>>>> of lru. The following lru list is expected, with those filioes that have
>>>>>>>>>> been added to swap cache are rotated to tail of lru. So those folios
>>>>>>>>>> can be reclaimed as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> folio1<->folio2<->...<->folioN-1<->filioN1<->...folioN511<->folioN512
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. However, shrink_page_list and folio writeback are asynchronous. If THP
>>>>>>>>>> is splited, shrink_page_list loops at least 512 times, which means that
>>>>>>>>>> shrink_page_list is not completed but some folios writeback have been
>>>>>>>>>> completed, and this may lead to failure to rotate these folios to the
>>>>>>>>>> tail of lru. The lru may look likes as below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I assume you’re referring to PMD-mapped THP, but your code also modifies
>>>>>>>> mTHP, which might not be that large. For instance, it could be a 16KB mTHP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> folioN50<->folioN49<->...filioN1<->folio1<->folio2...<->folioN-1<->
>>>>>>>>>> folioN51<->folioN52<->...folioN511<->folioN512
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although those folios (N1-N50) have been finished writing back, they
>>>>>>>>>> are still at the head of lru. When isolating folios from lru, it scans
>>>>>>>>>> from tail to head, so it is difficult to scan those folios again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What mentioned above may lead to a large number of folios have been added
>>>>>>>>>> to swap cache but can not be reclaimed in time, which may reduce reclaim
>>>>>>>>>> efficiency and prevent other memcgs from using this swap memory even if
>>>>>>>>>> they trigger OOM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To fix this issue, it's better to stop looping if THP has been splited and
>>>>>>>>>> nr_pageout is greater than nr_to_reclaim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> mm/vmscan.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 749cdc110c74..fd8ad251eda2 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1047,7 +1047,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
>>>>>>>>>> LIST_HEAD(demote_folios);
>>>>>>>>>> unsigned int nr_reclaimed = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> unsigned int pgactivate = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> - bool do_demote_pass;
>>>>>>>>>> + bool do_demote_pass, splited = false;
>>>>>>>>>> struct swap_iocb *plug = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> folio_batch_init(&free_folios);
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1065,6 +1065,16 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cond_resched();
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>>>>> + * If a large folio has been split, many folios are added
>>>>>>>>>> + * to folio_list. Looping through the entire list takes
>>>>>>>>>> + * too much time, which may prevent folios that have completed
>>>>>>>>>> + * writeback from rotateing to the tail of the lru. Just
>>>>>>>>>> + * stop looping if nr_pageout is greater than nr_to_reclaim.
>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(splited && stat->nr_pageout > sc->nr_to_reclaim))
>>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m not entirely sure about the theory behind comparing stat->nr_pageout
>>>>>>>> with sc->nr_to_reclaim. However, the condition might still hold true even
>>>>>>>> if you’ve split a relatively small “large folio,” such as 16kB?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why compare stat->nr_pageout with sc->nr_to_reclaim? It's because if all
>>>>>>> pages that have been pageout can be reclaimed, then enough pages can be
>>>>>>> reclaimed when all pages have finished writeback. Thus, it may not have
>>>>>>> to pageout more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a small large folio(16 kB) has been split, it may return early
>>>>>>> without the entire pages in the folio_list being pageout, but I think
>>>>>>> that is fine. It can pageout more pages the next time it enters
>>>>>>> shrink_folio_list if there are not enough pages to reclaimed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, if pages that have been pageout are still at the head of the
>>>>>>> LRU, it is difficult to scan these pages again. In this case, not only
>>>>>>> might it "waste" some swap memory but it also has to pageout more pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering the above, I sent this patch. It may not be a perfect
>>>>>>> solution, but i think it's a good option to consider. And I am wondering
>>>>>>> if anyone has a better solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ridong,
>>>>>> My overall understanding is that you have failed to describe your problem
>>>>>> particularly I don't understand what your 3 and 4 mean:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. When folio writeback io is completed, the folio may be rotated to tail
>>>>>>> of lru. The following lru list is expected, with those filioes that have
>>>>>>> been added to swap cache are rotated to tail of lru. So those folios
>>>>>>> can be reclaimed as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> folio1<->folio2<->...<->folioN-1<->filioN1<->...folioN511<->folioN512
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > 4. However, shrink_page_list and folio writeback are asynchronous. If THP
>>>>>> > is splited, shrink_page_list loops at least 512 times, which means that
>>>>>> > shrink_page_list is not completed but some folios writeback have been
>>>>>> > completed, and this may lead to failure to rotate these folios to the
>>>>>> > tail of lru. The lru may look likes as below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> can you please describe it in a readable approach?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i feel your below diagram is somehow wrong:
>>>>>> folio1<->folio2<->...<->folioN-1<->filioN1<->...folioN511<->folioN512
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mentioned "rotate', how could "rotate" makes:
>>>>>> folioN512<->folioN511<->...filioN1 in (2)
>>>>>> become
>>>>>> filioN1<->...folioN511<->folioN512 in (3).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry for any confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> If THP is split, filioN1, filioN2, filioN3, ...filioN512 are committed
>>>>> to writeback one by one. it assumed that filioN1,
>>>>> filioN2,filioN3,...filioN512 are completed in order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Orignal:
>>>>> folioN512<->folioN511<->...filioN1<->folio1<->folio2...<->folioN-1
>>>>>
>>>>> filioN1 is finished, filioN1 is rotated to the tail of LRU:
>>>>> folioN512<->folioN511<->...filioN2<->folio1<->folio2...<->folioN-1<->folioN1
>>>>>
>>>>> filioN2 is finished:
>>>>> folioN512<->folioN511<->...filioN3<->folio1<->folio2...<->folioN-1<->folioN1<->folioN2
>>>>>
>>>>> filioN3 is finished:
>>>>> folioN512<->folioN511<->...filioN4<->folio1<->folio2...<->folioN-1<->folioN1<->folioN2<->filioN3
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> filioN512 is finished:
>>>>> folio1<->folio2<->...<->folioN-1<->filioN1<->...folioN511<->folioN512
>>>>>
>>>>> When the filios are finished, the LRU might just like this:
>>>>> folio1<->folio2<->...<->folioN-1<->filioN1<->...folioN511<->folioN512
>>>>
>>>> understood, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Let me try to understand the following part:
>>>>
>>>>> 4:
>>>>> folioN50<->folioN49<->...filioN1<->folio1<->folio2...<->folioN-1<->
>>>>> folioN51<->folioN52<->...folioN511<->folioN512
>>>>
>>>> > Although those folios (N1-N50) have been finished writing back, they
>>>> > are still at the head of lru. When isolating folios from lru, it scans
>>>> > from tail to head, so it is difficult to scan those folios again.
>>>>
>>>> What is the reason that "those folios (N1-N50) have finished writing back,
>>>> yet they remain at the head of the LRU"? Is it because their writeback_end
>>>> occurred while we were still looping in shrink_folio_list(), causing
>>>> folio_end_writeback()'s folio_rotate_reclaimable() to fail in moving
>>>> these folios, which are still in the "folio_list", to the tail of the LRU?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you are right.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> btw, writeback isn't always async. it could be sync for zram and sync_io
>>>>>> swap. in that case, your patch might change the order of LRU. i mean,
>>>>>> for example, while a mTHP becomes cold, we always reclaim all of them,
>>>>>> but not part of them and put back part of small folios to the head of lru.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, This can be changed.
>>>>> Although it may put back part of small folios to the head of lru, it can
>>>>> return in time from shrink_folio_list without causing much additional I/O.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have understood this issue, do you have any suggestions to fix
>>>>> it? My patch may not be a perfect way to fix this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My point is that synchronous I/O, like zRAM, doesn't have this issue and
>>>> doesn't require this fix, as writeback is always completed without
>>>> asynchronous latency.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have tested zRAM and found no issues.
>>> This is version 1, and I don't know whether this fix will be accepted.
>
> Hi Ridong,
>
> Let me clarify further. I don't believe this is the right fix for either
> asynchronous or synchronous I/O, as the coldness of the folios
> is being overlooked in both cases. It could lead to more refaults
> because cold memory isn't having pageout() executed with the
> earlier break you're trying to add, even though it works around
> the problem you're facing.
>
> We should ensure that pageout() is always called for all subpages,
> regardless of whether an mTHP is split. However, we can adjust
> how the folio_list is returned to the LRU.
>
>>> If it is accepted, perhaps this patch could be modified to apply only to
>>> asynchronous io.
>>
>> Consider a 2MB THP: when it becomes cold, we detect that it is cold and
>> decide to page it out. Even if we split it into 512 * 4KiB folios, the entire
>> 2MB is still cold, so we want pageout() to be called for the entire 2MB.
>> With your current approach, some parts of the 2MB are moved to the
>> LRU head while we're still paging out other parts, which seems
>> problematic.
>>
>> Could we address this in move_folios_to_lru()? Perhaps we could find
>> a way to detect folios whose writeback has done and move them to the
>> tail instead of always placing them at the head.
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ridong
>
> Thanks
> Barry
