Hi Dave, I've got a few follow up questions below based on your response about this. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:18:00PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:36:25PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote: > > The catalyst of our issue is terrible disks. It's not uncommon to see > > the following stack in hung task detector: > > > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: INFO: task some-task:156314 blocked for > > more than 10 seconds. > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: Tainted: G O > > 4.14.59-cloudflare-2018.7.5 #1 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: "echo 0 > > > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: some-task D11792 156314 156183 0x00000080 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: Call Trace: > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: ? __schedule+0x21a/0x820 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: schedule+0x28/0x80 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: schedule_preempt_disabled+0xa/0x10 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: __mutex_lock.isra.2+0x16a/0x490 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: ? xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x265/0x2d0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x265/0x2d0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x14d/0x1b0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: ? radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag+0xc4/0x130 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: ? __list_lru_walk_one.isra.5+0x33/0x130 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x31/0x40 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: super_cache_scan+0x156/0x1a0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: shrink_slab.part.51+0x1d2/0x3a0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: shrink_node+0x113/0x2e0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: do_try_to_free_pages+0xb3/0x310 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: try_to_free_pages+0xd2/0x190 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x3a3/0xdc0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: ? ip_output+0x5c/0xc0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: ? update_curr+0x141/0x1a0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x223/0x240 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: skb_page_frag_refill+0x93/0xb0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: sk_page_frag_refill+0x19/0x80 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: tcp_sendmsg_locked+0x247/0xdc0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: tcp_sendmsg+0x27/0x40 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: sock_sendmsg+0x36/0x40 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: sock_write_iter+0x84/0xd0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: __vfs_write+0xdd/0x140 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: vfs_write+0xad/0x1a0 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: SyS_write+0x42/0x90 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: do_syscall_64+0x60/0x110 > > Nov 15 21:55:13 21m21 kernel: entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x3d/0xa2 > > > > Here "some-task" is trying to send some bytes over network and it's > > stuck in direct reclaim. Naturally, kswapd is not keeping up with its > > duties. > > That's not kswapd causing the problem here, that's direct reclaim. It is understood that the above is direct reclaim. When this happens kswapd is also blocked as below. As I'm sure you can imagine many other tasks get blocked in direct reclaim as well. [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] INFO: task kswapd0:1061 blocked for more than 10 seconds. [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] Tainted: G O 4.14.59-cloudflare-2018.7.5 #1 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] kswapd0 D12848 1061 2 0x80000000 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] Call Trace: [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] ? __schedule+0x21a/0x820 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] schedule+0x28/0x80 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] io_schedule+0x12/0x40 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] __xfs_iflock+0xe3/0x100 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] ? bit_waitqueue+0x30/0x30 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] xfs_reclaim_inode+0x141/0x300 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x19d/0x2d0 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:06 2018] xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x31/0x40 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] super_cache_scan+0x156/0x1a0 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] shrink_slab.part.51+0x1d2/0x3a0 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] shrink_node+0x113/0x2e0 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] kswapd+0x28a/0x6d0 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] ? mem_cgroup_shrink_node+0x150/0x150 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] kthread+0x119/0x130 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40 [Thu Nov 15 21:52:07 2018] ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 > > One solution to this is to not go into direct reclaim by keeping more > > free pages with vm.watermark_scale_factor, but I'd like to discard > > this and argue that we're going to hit direct reclaim at some point > > anyway. > > Right, but the problem is that the mm/ subsystem allows effectively > unbound direct reclaim concurrency. At some point, having tens to > hundreds of direct reclaimers all trying to write dirty inodes to > disk causes catastrophic IO breakdown and everything grinds to a > halt forever. We have to prevent that breakdown from occurring. > > i.e. we have to throttle direct reclaim to before it reaches IO > breakdown /somewhere/. The memory reclaim subsystem does not do it, > so we have to do it in XFS itself. The problem here is that if we > ignore direct reclaim (i.e do nothing rather than block waiting on > reclaim progress) then the mm/ reclaim algorithms will eventually > think they aren't making progress and unleash the OOM killer. Here is my naive question. Why does kswapd block? Wouldn't it make sense for kswapd to asynchronously start the xfs_reclaim_inodes process and then continue looking for other pages (perhaps page cache) that it can easily free? In my mind this might prevent us from ever getting to the point of direct reclaim. And if we did get to that point then yes I can see that you might need to synchronously block all tasks in direct reclaim in xfs_reclaim_inodes to prevent the thundering herd problem. My other question is why does the mm/ reclaim algorithms think that that they need to force this metadata reclaim? I think Ivan's main question was we have 95GB of page cache maybe 2-3GB of total slab memory in use, and maybe 1GB of dirty pages. Blocking the world for any disk I/O at this point seems insane when there is other quickly freeable memory. I assume the answer is LRU? Our page cache pages are newer or more frequently accesses then this filesystem metadata? Thanks, Shawn
