lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] Do not unconditionally treat zones that fail zone_reclaim() as full
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:05:19PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > hmmm
> > > I haven't catch your mention yet. sorry.
> > > Could you please explain more?
> > >
> > > My confuseness are:
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > ----
> > > I think your patch almost revert Paul's 9276b1bc96a132f4068fdee00983c532f43d3a26 essence.
> > > after your patch applied, zlc_mark_zone_full() is called only when zone_is_all_unreclaimable()==1
> > > or memory stealed after zone_watermark_ok() rechecking.
> > >
> >
> > It's true that the zone is only being marked full when it's .... full due
> > to all pages being unreclaimable. Maybe this is too aggressive.
> >
> > > but zone_is_all_unreclaimable() is very rare on large NUMA machine. Thus
> > > your patch makes zlc_zone_worth_trying() check to worthless.
> > > So, I like simple reverting 9276b1bc rather than introduce more messy if necessary.
> > >
> > > but necessary? why?
> > >
> >
> > Allegedly the ZLC cache reduces on large NUMA machines but I have no figures
> > proving or disproving that so I'm wary of a full revert.
> >
> > The danger as I see it is that zones get skipped when there was no need
> > simply because the previous caller failed to scan with the case of the GFP
> > flags causing the zone to be marked full of particular concern.
> >
> > I was also concerned that once it was marked full, the zone was unconditionally
> > skipped even though the next caller might be using a different watermark
> > level like ALLOC_WMARK_LOW or ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS.
>
> Right.
>
> > How about the following.
> >
> > o If the zone is fully unreclaimable - mark full
> > o If the zone_reclaim() avoids the scan because of the number of pages
> > and the current setting of reclaim_mode - mark full
> > o If the scan occurs but enough pages were not reclaimed to meet the
> > watermarks - mark full
>
> Looks good.
>

Ok, I've made those changes.

>
> >
> > This is the important part
> >
> > o Push down the zlc_zone_worth_trying() further down to take place after
> > the watermark check has failed but before reclaim_zone() is considered
> >
> > The last part in particular is important because it might mean the
> > zone_reclaim_interval can be later dropped because the zlc does the necessary
> > scan avoidance for a period of time. It also means that a check of a bitmap
> > is happening outside of a fast path.
>
> hmmm...
> I guess the intension of zlc_zone_worth_trying() is for reduce zone_watermark_ok() calling.
> it's because zone_watermark_ok() is a bit heavy weight function.
>

It's possible, and according to the commit that added this, the ignoring
of watermarks was deliberate according to this note

- I pay no attention to the various watermarks and such in this performance
hint. A node could be marked full for one watermark, and then skipped
over when searching for a page using a different watermark. I think
that's actually quite ok, as it will tend to slightly increase the
spreading of memory over other nodes, away from a memory stressed node.

> I also strongly hope to improve fast-path of page allocator. but I'm afraid
> this change break ZLC worth perfectly.
>
> What do you think this? I think this is key point of this change.
>

I'll leave the zlc check where it is so. The other changes as to when
the zone is considered full still make sense.

> > > 2.
> > > -----
> > > Why simple following switch-case is wrong?
> > >
> > > case ZONE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN:
> > > goto try_next_zone;
> > > case ZONE_RECLAIM_FULL:
> > > case ZONE_RECLAIM_SOME:
> > > goto this_zone_full;
> > > case ZONE_RECLAIM_SUCCESS
> > > ; /* do nothing */
> > >
> > > I mean,
> > > (1) ZONE_RECLAIM_SOME and zone_watermark_ok()==1
> > > are rare.
> >
> > How rare? In the event the zone is under pressure, we could be just on the
> > watermark. If we're within 32 pages of that watermark, then reclaiming some
> > pages might just be enough to meet the watermark so why consider it full?
>
> I mean, typically zone-reclaim can found reclaimable clean 32 pages easily.
> it mean
> - in current kernel, dirty-ratio works perfectly.
> all pages dirty scenario never happend.
> - now, we have split lru. plenty anon pages don't prevent
> reclaim file-backed page.
>

Assuming zone_reclaim() easily reclaimed 32 pages does not mean that we
are above the watermark for this allocation. For example, lets say another
request stream was ignoring watermarks or the minimum watermarks and we're
contending. If the current request must be over the normal watermark,
32 pages may not be enough to get over that watermark due to the requests
ignoring watermarks and it should still fail and move onto the next zone.

In the case of ZONE_RECLAIM_SOME, we have two choices. We can check the
watermark, hope we are not meeting it and if so allocate a page or we can
just give up and go off-node. I believe that one last check of the watermarks
is potentially cheaper than definitely going off-node.

>
> > > Is rechecking really worth?
> >
> > If we don't recheck and we reclaimed just 1 page, we allow a caller
> > to go below watermarks. This could have an impact on GFP_ATOMIC
> > allocations.
>
> Is jsut 1 page reclaimed really happen?
>

Probably not but the cost of the zone_watermark check after doing the
LRU scan shouldn't be of major concern.

>
> > > In my experience, zone_watermark_ok() is not so fast function.
> > >
> >
> > It's not, but watermarks can't be ignored just because the function is not
> > fast. For what it's worth, we are already in a horrible slow path by the
> > time we're reclaiming pages and the cost of zone_watermark_ok() is less
> > of a concern?
>
> for clarification,
>
> reclaim bail out (commit a79311c1) changed zone-reclaim behavior too.
>
> distro zone reclaim is horrible slow. it's because ZONE_RECLAIM_PRIORITY==4.
> but mainline kernel's zone reclaim isn't so slow. it have bail-out and
> effective split-lru based reclaim.
>
> but unfortunately bail-out cause frequently zone-reclaim calling, because
> one time zone-reclaim only reclaim 32 pages.
>
> in distro kernel, zone_watermark_ok() x number-of-called-zone-reclaim is not
> heavy at all. but its premise was changed.
>

Even though it is bailing out faster, I find it difficult to believe that
the cost of zone_watermark_ok() is anywhere near the cost of an LRU scan no
matter how fast it bails out.

>
>
> > > And,
> > >
> > > (2) ZONE_RECLAIM_SUCCESS and zone_watermark_ok()==0
> > >
> > > is also rare.
> >
> > Again, how rare? I don't actually know myself.
>
> it only happen reclaim success and another thread steal it.
>
>
> >
> > > What do you afraid bad thing?
> >
> > Because watermarks are important.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> > > I guess, high-order allocation and ZONE_RECLAIM_SUCCESS and
> > > zone_watermark_ok()==0 case, right?
> > >
> > > if so, Why your system makes high order allocation so freqently?
> >
> > This is not about high-order allocations.
>
> ok.
>
>
> > > 3.
> > > ------
> > > your patch do:
> > >
> > > 1. call zone_reclaim() and return ZONE_RECLAIM_SUCCESS
> > > 2. another thread steal memory
> > > 3. call zone_watermark_ok() and return 0
> > >
> > > but
> > >
> > > 1. call zone_reclaim() and return ZONE_RECLAIM_SUCCESS
> > > 2. call zone_watermark_ok() and return 1
> > > 3. another thread steal memory
> > > 4. call buffered_rmqueue() and return NULL
> > >
> > > Then, it call zlc_mark_zone_full().
> > >
> > > it seems a bit inconsistency.
> > >
> >
> > There is a relatively harmless race in there when memory is extremely
> > tight and there are multiple threads contending. Potentially, we go one
> > page below the watermark per thread contending on the one zone because
> > we are not locking in this path and the allocation could be satisified
> > from the per-cpu allocator.
> >
> > However, I do not see this issue as being serious enough to warrent
> > fixing because it would require a lock just to very strictly adhere to
> > the watermarks. It's different to the case above where if we did not check
> > watermarks, a thread can go below the watermark without any other thread
> > contending.
>
> I agree with this is not so important. ok, I get rid of this claim.
>

Ok.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 15:31    [W:0.101 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site