Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:58:22 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA |
| |
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:01:28PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote: > On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that is a > more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA distances, > zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean unmapped pages will be > reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being met. The problem is that > zone_reclaim() can be in a situation where it scans excessively without > making progress. > > One such situation is where a large tmpfs mount is occupying a large > percentage of memory overall. The pages do not get cleaned or reclaimed by > zone_reclaim(), but the lists are uselessly scanned frequencly making the > CPU spin at 100%. The scanning occurs because zone_reclaim() cannot tell > in advance the scan is pointless because the counters do not distinguish > between pagecache pages backed by disk and by RAM. The observation in > the field is that malloc() stalls for a long time (minutes in some cases) > when this situation occurs. > > Accounting for ram-backed file pages was considered but not implemented on > the grounds it would be introducing new branches and expensive checks into > the page cache add/remove patches and increase the number of statistics > needed in the zone. As zone_reclaim() failing is currently considered a > corner case, this seemed like overkill. Note, if there are a large number > of reports about CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA that is fixed by disabling > zone_reclaim, then this assumption is false and zone_reclaim() scanning > and failing is not a corner case but a common occurance > > This patch reintroduces zone_reclaim_interval which was removed by commit > 34aa1330f9b3c5783d269851d467326525207422 [zoned vm counters: zone_reclaim: > remove /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_interval] because the zone counters were > considered sufficient to determine in advance if the scan would succeed. > As unsuccessful scans can still occur, zone_reclaim_interval is still > required.
Can we avoid the user visible parameter zone_reclaim_interval?
That means to introduce some heuristics for it. Since the whole point is to avoid 100% CPU usage, we can take down the time used for this failed zone reclaim (T) and forbid zone reclaim until (NOW + 100*T).
Thanks, Fengguang
| |