On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:57:00PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 09:14:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > The fair zone allocation policy round-robins allocations between zones
> > within a node to avoid age inversion problems during reclaim. If the
> > first allocation fails, the batch counts is reset and a second attempt
> > made before entering the slow path.
> >
> > One assumption made with this scheme is that batches expire at roughly the
> > same time and the resets each time are justified. This assumption does not
> > hold when zones reach their low watermark as the batches will be consumed
> > at uneven rates. Allocation failure due to watermark depletion result in
> > additional zonelist scans for the reset and another watermark check before
> > hitting the slowpath.
> >
> > This patch makes a number of changes that should reduce the overall cost
> >
> > o Do not apply the fair zone policy to small zones such as DMA
> > o Abort the fair zone allocation policy once remote or small zones are
> > encountered
> > o Use a simplier scan when resetting NR_ALLOC_BATCH
> > o Use a simple flag to identify depleted zones instead of accessing a
> > potentially write-intensive cache line for counters
> > o Track zones who met the watermark but failed the NR_ALLOC_BATCH check
> > to avoid doing a rescan of the zonelist when the counters are reset
> >
> > On UMA machines, the effect is marginal. Even judging from system CPU
> > usage it's small for the tiobench test
> >
> > 3.16.0-rc2 3.16.0-rc2
> > checklow fairzone
> > User 396.24 396.23
> > System 395.23 391.50
> > Elapsed 5182.65 5165.49
>
> The next patch reports fairzone at 5182.86 again, so I'm guessing this
> patch is not actually reliably reducing the runtime to 5165.49, that's
> just runtime variation.
>
The change is going to be marginal that it'll depend on a host of issues
including how much merging/splitting the page allocator does.
> > And the number of pages allocated from each zone is comparable
> >
> > 3.16.0-rc2 3.16.0-rc2
> > checklow fairzone
> > DMA allocs 0 0
> > DMA32 allocs 7374217 7920241
> > Normal allocs 999277551 996568115
>
> Wow, the DMA32 zone gets less than 1% of the allocations. What are
> the zone sizes in this machine?
>
managed 3976
managed 755409
managed 1281601
> > @@ -1908,6 +1912,20 @@ static bool zone_allows_reclaim(struct zone *local_zone, struct zone *zone)
> >
> > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
> >
> > +static void reset_alloc_batches(struct zone *preferred_zone)
> > +{
> > + struct zone *zone = preferred_zone->zone_pgdat->node_zones;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + if (!zone_is_fair_depleted(zone))
> > + continue;
> > + mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH,
> > + high_wmark_pages(zone) - low_wmark_pages(zone) -
> > + atomic_long_read(&zone->vm_stat[NR_ALLOC_BATCH]));
> > + zone_clear_flag(zone, ZONE_FAIR_DEPLETED);
> > + } while (zone++ != preferred_zone);
>
> get_page_from_freelist() looks at the batches in zonelist order, why
> reset them in node_zones order? Sure they are the same for all the
> cases we care about now, but it's a non-obvious cross-depedency...
>
There is no functional difference at the end of the day.
> Does this even make a measurable difference? It's a slow path after
> you fixed the excessive resets below.
>
Again, very borderline but doing it this way avoids functional calls to
restart the zonelist walk.
> > @@ -2073,8 +2093,25 @@ this_zone_full:
> > * for !PFMEMALLOC purposes.
> > */
> > page->pfmemalloc = !!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS);
> > + return page;
> > + }
> >
> > - return page;
> > + if ((alloc_flags & ALLOC_FAIR) && nr_fair_skipped) {
> > + alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_FAIR;
> > + zonelist_rescan = true;
> > + reset_alloc_batches(preferred_zone);
> > + }
>
> Yes, it happens quite often that get_page_from_freelist() fails due to
> watermarks while all the batches are fine, so resetting the batches
> and rescanning the zonelist is kind of a waste of time.
Yep
> However, in
> this situation, we are waiting for kswapd to make progress on the
> watermarks, and it doesn't really matter where we are wasting time...
>
Or we can enter the slowpath sooner and get something useful done.
> In this micro benchmark that doesn't really do much besides allocating
> and reclaiming IO-less cache pages, the performance difference is less
> than 1% with this patch applied:
>
> old: 19.835353264 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.39% )
> new: 19.587258161 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.34% )
>
> But overall I agree with this particular change.
>
> > @@ -2748,33 +2763,18 @@ retry_cpuset:
> > goto out;
> > classzone_idx = zonelist_zone_idx(preferred_zoneref);
> >
> > + if (zonelist->fair_enabled)
> > + alloc_flags |= ALLOC_FAIR;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > if (allocflags_to_migratetype(gfp_mask) == MIGRATE_MOVABLE)
> > alloc_flags |= ALLOC_CMA;
> > #endif
> > -retry:
> > /* First allocation attempt */
> > page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask|__GFP_HARDWALL, nodemask, order,
> > zonelist, high_zoneidx, alloc_flags,
> > preferred_zone, classzone_idx, migratetype);
> > if (unlikely(!page)) {
> > /*
> > - * The first pass makes sure allocations are spread
> > - * fairly within the local node. However, the local
> > - * node might have free pages left after the fairness
> > - * batches are exhausted, and remote zones haven't
> > - * even been considered yet. Try once more without
> > - * fairness, and include remote zones now, before
> > - * entering the slowpath and waking kswapd: prefer
> > - * spilling to a remote zone over swapping locally.
> > - */
>
> I wrote this comment, so I don't know how helpful it is to others, but
> the retry logic in get_page_from_freelist() seems a little naked
> without any explanation.
>
I'll preserve the comment
> > - if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_FAIR) {
> > - reset_alloc_batches(zonelist, high_zoneidx,
> > - preferred_zone);
> > - alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_FAIR;
> > - goto retry;
> > - }
> > - /*
> > * Runtime PM, block IO and its error handling path
> > * can deadlock because I/O on the device might not
> > * complete.
> > @@ -3287,10 +3287,18 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter)
> > show_swap_cache_info();
> > }
> >
> > -static void zoneref_set_zone(struct zone *zone, struct zoneref *zoneref)
> > +static int zoneref_set_zone(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct zone *zone,
> > + struct zoneref *zoneref, struct zone *preferred_zone)
> > {
> > + int zone_type = zone_idx(zone);
> > + bool fair_enabled = zone_local(zone, preferred_zone);
> > + if (zone_type == 0 &&
> > + zone->managed_pages < (pgdat->node_present_pages >> 4))
> > + fair_enabled = false;
>
> This needs a comment.
>
/*
* Do not count the lowest zone as of relevance to the fair zone
* allocation policy if it's a small percentage of the node
*/
However, as I write this I'll look at getting rid of this entirely. It
made some sense when fair_eligible was tracked on a per-zone basis but
it's more complex than necessary.
> > zoneref->zone = zone;
> > - zoneref->zone_idx = zone_idx(zone);
> > + zoneref->zone_idx = zone_type;
> > + return fair_enabled;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -3303,17 +3311,26 @@ static int build_zonelists_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct zonelist *zonelist,
> > {
> > struct zone *zone;
> > enum zone_type zone_type = MAX_NR_ZONES;
> > + struct zone *preferred_zone = NULL;
> > + int nr_fair = 0;
> >
> > do {
> > zone_type--;
> > zone = pgdat->node_zones + zone_type;
> > if (populated_zone(zone)) {
> > - zoneref_set_zone(zone,
> > - &zonelist->_zonerefs[nr_zones++]);
> > + if (!preferred_zone)
> > + preferred_zone = zone;
> > +
> > + nr_fair += zoneref_set_zone(pgdat, zone,
> > + &zonelist->_zonerefs[nr_zones++],
> > + preferred_zone);
>
> Passing preferred_zone to determine locality seems pointless when you
> walk the zones of a single node.
>
True.
> And the return value of zoneref_set_zone() is fairly unexpected.
>
How so?
> It's probably better to determine fair_enabled in the callsite, that
> would fix both problems, and write a separate helper that tests if a
> zone is eligible for fair treatment (type && managed_pages test).
>
Are you thinking of putting that into the page allocator fast path? I'm
trying to take stuff out of there :/.
An alternative would be to look one zone ahead in the zonelist and check
zone_local there. That would get most of the intent and be cheaper than
a check on the zone or pgdat size.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>