lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 11/15] mm: trigger page reclaim in alloc_contig_range() to stabilize watermarks
Hello,

On Friday, February 10, 2012 12:19 PM Mel Gorman wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 04:14:46PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > > +static int __reclaim_pages(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, int count)
> > > > +{
> > > > + enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask);
> > > > + struct zonelist *zonelist = node_zonelist(0, gfp_mask);
> > > > + int did_some_progress = 0;
> > > > + int order = 1;
> > > > + unsigned long watermark;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Increase level of watermarks to force kswapd do his job
> > > > + * to stabilize at new watermark level.
> > > > + */
> > > > + min_free_kbytes += count * PAGE_SIZE / 1024;
> > >
> > > There is a risk of overflow here although it is incredibly
> > > small. Still, a potentially nicer way of doing this was
> > >
> > > count << (PAGE_SHIFT - 10)
> > >
> > > > + setup_per_zone_wmarks();
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Nothing prevents two or more processes updating the wmarks at the same
> > > time which is racy and unpredictable. Today it is not much of a problem
> > > but CMA makes this path hotter than it was and you may see weirdness
> > > if two processes are updating zonelists at the same time. Swap-over-NFS
> > > actually starts with a patch that serialises setup_per_zone_wmarks()
> > >
> > > You also potentially have a BIG problem here if this happens
> > >
> > > min_free_kbytes = 32768
> > > Process a: min_free_kbytes += 65536
> > > Process a: start direct reclaim
> > > echo 16374 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
> > > Process a: exit direct_reclaim
> > > Process a: min_free_kbytes -= 65536
> > >
> > > min_free_kbytes now wraps negative and the machine hangs.
> > >
> > > The damage is confined to CMA though so I am not going to lose sleep
> > > over it but you might want to consider at least preventing parallel
> > > updates to min_free_kbytes from proc.
> >
> > Right. This approach was definitely too hacky. What do you think about replacing
> > it with the following code (I assume that setup_per_zone_wmarks() serialization
> > patch will be merged anyway so I skipped it here):
> >
>
> It's part of a larger series and the rest of that series is
> controversial. That single patch can be split out obviously so feel free
> to add it to your series and stick your Signed-off-by on the end of it.

Ok, I will grab it from that series.

> > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > index 82f4fa5..bb9ae41 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > @@ -371,6 +371,13 @@ struct zone {
> > /* see spanned/present_pages for more description */
> > seqlock_t span_seqlock;
> > #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > + /*
> > + * CMA needs to increase watermark levels during the allocation
> > + * process to make sure that the system is not starved.
> > + */
> > + unsigned long min_cma_pages;
> > +#endif
> > struct free_area free_area[MAX_ORDER];
> >
> > #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 824fb37..1ca52f0 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -5044,6 +5044,11 @@ void setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
> >
> > zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2);
> > zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> > + zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] += zone->min_cma_pages;
> > + zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] += zone->min_cma_pages;
> > + zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] += zone->min_cma_pages;
> > +#endif
> > setup_zone_migrate_reserve(zone);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> > }
>
> This is better in that it is not vunerable to parallel updates of
> min_free_kbytes. It would be slightly tidier to introduce something
> like cma_wmark_pages() that returns min_cma_pages if CONFIG_CMA and 0
> otherwise. Use the helper to get right of this ifdef CONFIG_CMA within
> setup_per_zone_wmarks().

Thanks for the hint. I will submit this change soon.

> You'll still have the problem of kswapd not taking CMA pages properly into
> account when deciding whether to reclaim or not though.

This will only affect CMA clients, I hope we can fix this later once the patches
get merged. I would really like to get it into v3.4, what means that it should be
tested in next asap.

Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-10 16:39    [W:0.165 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site