On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 08:36:08AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hello Dan,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay. I had internal works which should be handled
>> urgent. I hope you don't lose your interest due to my bad response
>> latency.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:52:22AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:01:03AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
>> > >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> > This patch implement SWAP_FULL handler in zram so that VM can
>> > >> > know whether zram is full or not and use it to stop anonymous
>> > >> > page reclaim.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > How to judge fullness is below,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > fullness = (100 * used space / total space)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It means the higher fullness is, the slower we reach zram full.
>> > >> > Now, default of fullness is 80 so that it biased more momory
>> > >> > consumption rather than early OOM kill.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Above logic works only when used space of zram hit over the limit
>> > >> > but zram also pretend to be full once 32 consecutive allocation
>> > >> > fail happens. It's safe guard to prevent system hang caused by
>> > >> > fragment uncertainty.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> > ---
>> > >> > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> > >> > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h | 1 +
>> > >> > 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> > >> > index 22a37764c409..649cad9d0b1c 100644
>> > >> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> > >> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> > >> > @@ -43,6 +43,20 @@ static const char *default_compressor = "lzo";
>> > >> > /* Module params (documentation at end) */
>> > >> > static unsigned int num_devices = 1;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > +/*
>> > >> > + * If (100 * used_pages / total_pages) >= ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT),
>> > >> > + * we regards it as zram-full. It means that the higher
>> > >> > + * ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT is, the slower we reach zram full.
>> > >> > + */
>> > >> > +#define ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT 80
>> > >>
>> > >> As Andrew said, this (or the user-configurable fullness param from the
>> > >> next patch) should have more detail about exactly why it's needed and
>> > >> what it does. The details of how zram considers itself "full" should
>> > >> be clear, which probably includes explaining zsmalloc fragmentation.
>> > >> It should be also clear this param only matters when limit_pages is
>> > >> set, and this param is only checked when zsmalloc's total size has
>> > >> reached that limit.
>> > >
>> > > Sure, How about this?
>> > >
>> > > The fullness file is read/write and specifies how easily
>> > > zram become full state. Normally, we can think "full"
>> > > once all of memory is consumed but it's not simple with
>> > > zram because zsmalloc has some issue by internal design
>> > > so that write could fail once consumed *page* by zram
>> > > reaches the mem_limit and zsmalloc cannot have a empty
>> > > slot for the compressed object's size on fragmenet space
>> > > although it has more empty slots for other sizes.
>> >
>> > I understand that, but it might be confusing or unclear to anyone
>> > who's not familiar with how zsmalloc works.
>> >
>> > Maybe it could be explained by referencing the existing
>> > compr_data_size and mem_used_total? In addition to some or all of the
>> > above, you could add something like:
>> >
>> > This controls when zram decides that it is "full". It is a percent
>> > value, checked against compr_data_size / mem_used_total. When
>> > mem_used_total is equal to mem_limit, the fullness is checked and if
>> > the compr_data_size / mem_used_total percentage is higher than this
>> > specified fullness value, zram is considered "full".
>>
>> Better than my verbose version.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > We regard zram as full once consumed *page* reaches the
>> > > mem_limit and consumed memory until now is higher the value
>> > > resulted from the knob. So, if you set the value high,
>> > > you can squeeze more pages into fragment space so you could
>> > > avoid early OOM while you could see more write-fail warning,
>> > > overhead to fail-write recovering by VM and reclaim latency.
>> > > If you set the value low, you can see OOM kill easily
>> > > even though there are memory space in zram but you could
>> > > avoid shortcomings mentioned above.
>> >
>> > You should clarify also that this is currently only used by
>> > swap-on-zram, and this value prevents swap from writing to zram once
>> > it is "full". This setting has no effect when using zram for a
>> > mounted filesystem.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > This knobs is valid ony if you set mem_limit.
>> > > Currently, initial value is 80% but it could be changed.
>> > >
>> > > I didn't decide how to change it from percent.
>> > > Decimal fraction Jerome mentioned does make sense to me so please ignore
>> > > percent part in above.
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Also, since the next patch changes it to be used only as a default,
>> > >> shouldn't it be DEFAULT_ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT or similar?
>> > >
>> > > Okay, I will do it in 5/5.
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > +/*
>> > >> > + * If zram fails to allocate memory consecutively up to this,
>> > >> > + * we regard it as zram-full. It's safe guard to prevent too
>> > >> > + * many swap write fail due to lack of fragmentation uncertainty.
>> > >> > + */
>> > >> > +#define ALLOC_FAIL_MAX 32
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > #define ZRAM_ATTR_RO(name) \
>> > >> > static ssize_t zram_attr_##name##_show(struct device *d, \
>> > >> > struct device_attribute *attr, char *b) \
>> > >> > @@ -148,6 +162,7 @@ static ssize_t mem_limit_store(struct device *dev,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
>> > >> > zram->limit_pages = PAGE_ALIGN(limit) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> > >> > + atomic_set(&zram->alloc_fail, 0);
>> > >> > up_write(&zram->init_lock);
>> > >> >
>> > >> > return len;
>> > >> > @@ -410,6 +425,7 @@ static void zram_free_page(struct zram *zram, size_t index)
>> > >> > atomic64_sub(zram_get_obj_size(meta, index),
>> > >> > &zram->stats.compr_data_size);
>> > >> > atomic64_dec(&zram->stats.pages_stored);
>> > >> > + atomic_set(&zram->alloc_fail, 0);
>> > >> >
>> > >> > meta->table[index].handle = 0;
>> > >> > zram_set_obj_size(meta, index, 0);
>> > >> > @@ -597,10 +613,15 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
>> > >> > }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > alloced_pages = zs_get_total_pages(meta->mem_pool);
>> > >> > - if (zram->limit_pages && alloced_pages > zram->limit_pages) {
>> > >> > - zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
>> > >> > - ret = -ENOMEM;
>> > >> > - goto out;
>> > >> > + if (zram->limit_pages) {
>> > >> > + if (alloced_pages > zram->limit_pages) {
>> > >> > + zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
>> > >> > + atomic_inc(&zram->alloc_fail);
>> > >> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
>> > >> > + goto out;
>> > >> > + } else {
>> > >> > + atomic_set(&zram->alloc_fail, 0);
>> > >> > + }
>> > >>
>> > >> So, with zram_full() checking for alloced_pages >= limit_pages, this
>> > >> will need to be changed; the way it is now it prevents that from ever
>> > >> being true.
>> > >>
>> > >> Instead I believe this check has to be moved to before zs_malloc(), so
>> > >> that alloced_pages > limit_pages is true.
>> > >
>> > > I don't get it why you said "it prevents that from ever being true".
>> > > Now, zram can use up until limit_pages (ie, used memory == zram->limit_pages)
>> > > and trying to get more is failed. so zram_full checks it as
>> > > toal_pages >= zram->limit_pages so what is problem?
>> > > If I miss your point, could you explain more?
>> >
>> > ok, that's true, it's possible for alloc_pages == limit_pages, but
>> > since zsmalloc will increase its size by a full zspage, and those can
>> > be anywhere between 1 and 4 pages in size, it's only a (very roughly)
>> > 25% chance that an alloc will cause alloc_pages == limit_pages, it's
>> > more likely that an alloc will cause alloc_pages > limit_pages. Now,
>> > after some number of write failures, that 25% (-ish) probability will
>> > be met, and alloc_pages == limit_pages will happen, but there's a
>> > rather high chance that there will be some number of write failures
>> > first.
>> >
>> > To summarize or restate that, I guess what I'm saying is that for
>> > users who don't care about some write failures and/or users with no
>> > other swap devices except zram, it probably does not matter. However
>> > for them, they probably will rely on the 32 write failure limit, and
>> > not the fullness limit. For users where zram is only the primary swap
>> > device, and there is a backup swap device, they probably will want
>> > zram to fail over to the backup fairly quickly, with as few write
>> > failures as possible (preferably, none, I would think). And this
>> > situation makes that highly unlikely - since there's only about a 25%
>> > chance of alloc_pages == limit_pages with no previous write failures,
>> > it's almost a certainty that there will be write failures before zram
>> > is decided to be "full", even if "fullness" is set to 0.
>> >
>> > With that said, you're right that it will eventually work, and those
>> > few write failures while trying to get to alloc_pages == limit_pages
>> > would probably not be noticable. However, do remember that zram won't
>> > stay full forever, so if it is only the primary swap device, it's
>> > likely it will move between "full" and "not full" quite a lot, and
>> > those few write failures may start adding up.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> But it is possible to see write-failure even though we correct
>> it because there is potential chance for zram to fail to allocate
>> order-0 page by a few reason which one of them is CMA I got several
>> reports because zRAM cannot allocate a movable page due to lack of
>> migration while usersapce goes with it well. I have a plan to fix it
>> with zsmalloc migration work but there are another chances to make
>> fail order-0 page by serval ways so I don't think we cannot prevent
>> write-failure completely unless we have reserved memory for zram.
>>
>> Having said that, I agree it would be better to reduce such fails
>> with small code piece so I will check zram_full as follows,
>>
>> /*
>> * XXX: zsmalloc_maxpages check should be removed when zsmalloc
>> * implement using of fragmented spaces in last page of zspage.
>> */
>> if (total_pages >= zram->limit_pages - zsmalloc_maxpages()) {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>
> How about this?
yep, that looks good to me.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index 19da34aaf4f5..f03a94d7aa17 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -978,7 +978,7 @@ static void zram_full(struct block_device *bdev, bool *full)
> meta = zram->meta;
> total_pages = zs_get_total_pages(meta->mem_pool);
>
> - if (total_pages >= zram->limit_pages) {
> + if (total_pages > zram->limit_pages - zs_get_maxpages_per_zspage()) {
>
> compr_pages = atomic64_read(&zram->stats.compr_data_size)
> >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> diff --git a/include/linux/zsmalloc.h b/include/linux/zsmalloc.h
> index 05c214760977..73eb87bc5a4e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/zsmalloc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/zsmalloc.h
> @@ -48,4 +48,5 @@ void zs_unmap_object(struct zs_pool *pool, unsigned long handle);
>
> unsigned long zs_get_total_pages(struct zs_pool *pool);
>
> +int zs_get_maxpages_per_zspage(void);
> #endif
> diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> index 839a48c3ca27..6b6653455573 100644
> --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> @@ -316,6 +316,12 @@ static struct zpool_driver zs_zpool_driver = {
> MODULE_ALIAS("zpool-zsmalloc");
> #endif /* CONFIG_ZPOOL */
>
> +int zs_get_maxpages_per_zspage(void)
> +{
> + return ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(zs_get_maxpages_per_zspage);
> +
> /* per-cpu VM mapping areas for zspage accesses that cross page boundaries */
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mapping_area, zs_map_area);
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
--
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>