On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:15:06AM +0800, Ge Yang wrote:
>
>
> 在 2024/12/17 23:55, Johannes Weiner 写道:
> > Hello Yangge,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 07:46:44PM +0800, yangge1116@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: yangge <yangge1116@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Since commit 984fdba6a32e ("mm, compaction: use proper alloc_flags
> >> in __compaction_suitable()") allow compaction to proceed when free
> >> pages required for compaction reside in the CMA pageblocks, it's
> >> possible that __compaction_suitable() always returns true, and in
> >> some cases, it's not acceptable.
> >>
> >> There are 4 NUMA nodes on my machine, and each NUMA node has 32GB
> >> of memory. I have configured 16GB of CMA memory on each NUMA node,
> >> and starting a 32GB virtual machine with device passthrough is
> >> extremely slow, taking almost an hour.
> >>
> >> During the start-up of the virtual machine, it will call
> >> pin_user_pages_remote(..., FOLL_LONGTERM, ...) to allocate memory.
> >> Long term GUP cannot allocate memory from CMA area, so a maximum
> >> of 16 GB of no-CMA memory on a NUMA node can be used as virtual
> >> machine memory. Since there is 16G of free CMA memory on the NUMA
> >> node, watermark for order-0 always be met for compaction, so
> >> __compaction_suitable() always returns true, even if the node is
> >> unable to allocate non-CMA memory for the virtual machine.
> >>
> >> For costly allocations, because __compaction_suitable() always
> >> returns true, __alloc_pages_slowpath() can't exit at the appropriate
> >> place, resulting in excessively long virtual machine startup times.
> >> Call trace:
> >> __alloc_pages_slowpath
> >> if (compact_result == COMPACT_SKIPPED ||
> >> compact_result == COMPACT_DEFERRED)
> >> goto nopage; // should exit __alloc_pages_slowpath() from here
> >>
> >> Other unmovable alloctions, like dma_buf, which can be large in a
> >> Linux system, are also unable to allocate memory from CMA, and these
> >> allocations suffer from the same problems described above. In order
> >> to quickly fall back to remote node, we should remove ALLOC_CMA both
> >> in __compaction_suitable() and __isolate_free_page() for unmovable
> >> alloctions. After this fix, starting a 32GB virtual machine with
> >> device passthrough takes only a few seconds.
> >
> > The symptom is obviously bad, but I don't understand this fix.
> >
> > The reason we do ALLOC_CMA is that, even for unmovable allocations,
> > you can create space in non-CMA space by moving migratable pages over
> > to CMA space. This is not a property we want to lose. But I also don't
> > see how it would interfere with your scenario.
>
> The __alloc_pages_slowpath() function was originally intended to exit at
> place 1, but due to __compaction_suitable() always returning true, it
> results in __alloc_pages_slowpath() exiting at place 2 instead. This
> ultimately leads to a significantly longer execution time for
> __alloc_pages_slowpath().
>
> Call trace:
> __alloc_pages_slowpath
> if (compact_result == COMPACT_SKIPPED ||
> compact_result == COMPACT_DEFERRED)
> goto nopage; // place 1
> __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim() // Reclaim is very expensive
> __alloc_pages_direct_compact()
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> goto nopage; // place 2
>
> Every time memory allocation goes through the above slower process, it
> ultimately leads to significantly longer virtual machine startup times.
I still don't follow. Why do you want the allocation to fail?
The changelog says this is in order to fall back quickly to other
nodes. But there is a full node walk in get_page_from_freelist()
before the allocator even engages reclaim. There is something missing
from the story still.
But regardless - surely you can see that we can't make the allocator
generally weaker on large requests just because they happen to be
optional in your specific case?
> > There is the compaction_suitable() check in should_compact_retry(),
> > but that only applies when COMPACT_SKIPPED. IOW, it should only happen
> > when compaction_suitable() just now returned false. IOW, a race
> > condition. Which is why it's also not subject to limited retries.
> >
> > What's the exact condition that traps the allocator inside the loop?
> The should_compact_retry() function was not executed, and the slow here
> was mainly due to the execution of __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim().
Ok.
