lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 14/14] mm, oom, compaction: prevent from should_compact_retry looping for ever for costly orders
On Thu 05-05-16 00:14:51, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2016-05-04 18:04 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>:
> > On Wed 04-05-16 15:27:48, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:27PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > +bool compaction_zonelist_suitable(struct alloc_context *ac, int order,
> >> > + int alloc_flags)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct zone *zone;
> >> > + struct zoneref *z;
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * Make sure at least one zone would pass __compaction_suitable if we continue
> >> > + * retrying the reclaim.
> >> > + */
> >> > + for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, ac->zonelist, ac->high_zoneidx,
> >> > + ac->nodemask) {
> >> > + unsigned long available;
> >> > + enum compact_result compact_result;
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * Do not consider all the reclaimable memory because we do not
> >> > + * want to trash just for a single high order allocation which
> >> > + * is even not guaranteed to appear even if __compaction_suitable
> >> > + * is happy about the watermark check.
> >> > + */
> >> > + available = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) / order;
> >>
> >> I can't understand why '/ order' is needed here. Think about specific
> >> example.
> >>
> >> zone_reclaimable_pages = 100 MB
> >> NR_FREE_PAGES = 20 MB
> >> watermark = 40 MB
> >> order = 10
> >>
> >> I think that compaction should run in this situation and your logic
> >> doesn't. We should be conservative when guessing not to do something
> >> prematurely.
> >
> > I do not mind changing this. But pushing really hard on reclaim for
> > order-10 pages doesn't sound like a good idea. So we should somehow
> > reduce the target. I am open for any better suggestions.
>
> If the situation is changed to order-2, it doesn't look good, either.

Why not? If we are not able to get over compaction_suitable watermark
check after we consider half of the reclaimable memory then we are really
close to oom. This will trigger only when the reclaimable LRUs are
really _tiny_. We are (very roughly) talking about:
low_wmark + 2<<order >= NR_FREE_PAGES + reclaimable/order - 1<<order
where low_wmark would be close to NR_FREE_PAGES so in the end we are asking
for order * 3<<order >= reclaimable and that sounds quite conservative
to me. Originally I wanted much more aggressive back off.

> I think that some reduction on zone_reclaimable_page() are needed since
> it's not possible to free all of them in certain case. But, reduction by order
> doesn't make any sense. if we need to consider order to guess probability of
> compaction, it should be considered in __compaction_suitable() instead of
> reduction from here.

I do agree that a more clever algorithm would be better and I also agree
that __compaction_suitable would be a better place for such a better
algorithm. I just wanted to have something simple first and more as a
safety net to stop endless retries (this has proven to work before I
found the real culprit compaction_ready patch). A more rigorous approach
would require a much deeper analysis what the actual compaction capacity
of the reclaimable memory really is. This is a quite hard problem and I
am not really convinced it is really needed.

> I think that following code that is used in should_reclaim_retry() would be
> good for here.
>
> available -= DIV_ROUND_UP(no_progress_loops * available, MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
>
> Any thought?

I would prefer not to mix reclaim retry logic in here. Moreover it can
be argued that this is a kind of arbitrary as well because it has no
relevance to the compaction capacity of the reclaimable memory. If I
have to chose then I would rather go with simpler calculation than
something that is complex and we are even not sure it works any better.

> >> > + available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
> >> > + compact_result = __compaction_suitable(zone, order, alloc_flags,
> >> > + ac->classzone_idx, available);
> >>
> >> It misses tracepoint in compaction_suitable().
> >
> > Why do you think the check would be useful. I have considered it more
> > confusing than halpful to I have intentionally not added it.
>
> What confusing do you have in mind?
> If we try to analyze OOM, we need to know why should_compact_retry()
> return false and and tracepoint here could be helpful.

Because then you can easily confuse compaction_suitable from the
compaction decisions and the allocation retries. This code patch
definitely deserves a specific trace point and I plan to prepare one
along with others in the allocation path.

[...]
> >> > @@ -3040,9 +3040,11 @@ should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result compact_result,
> >> > /*
> >> > * make sure the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early
> >> > * due to locks contention before we declare that we should give up.
> >> > + * But do not retry if the given zonelist is not suitable for
> >> > + * compaction.
> >> > */
> >> > if (compaction_withdrawn(compact_result))
> >> > - return true;
> >> > + return compaction_zonelist_suitable(ac, order, alloc_flags);
> >>
> >> I think that compaction_zonelist_suitable() should be checked first.
> >> If compaction_zonelist_suitable() returns false, it's useless to
> >> retry since it means that compaction cannot run if all reclaimable
> >> pages are reclaimed. Logic should be as following.
> >>
> >> if (!compaction_zonelist_suitable())
> >> return false;
> >>
> >> if (compaction_withdrawn())
> >> return true;
> >
> > That is certainly an option as well. The logic above is that I really
> > wanted to have a terminal condition when compaction can return
> > compaction_withdrawn for ever basically. Normally we are bound by a
> > number of successful reclaim rounds. Before we go an change there I
> > would like to see where it makes real change though.
>
> It would not make real change because !compaction_withdrawn() and
> !compaction_zonelist_suitable() case doesn't happen easily.
>
> But, change makes code more understandable so it's worth doing, IMO.

I dunno. I might be really biased here but I consider the current
ordering more appropriate for the reasons described above. Act as a
terminal condition for potentially endless compaction_withdrawn() rather
than a terminal condition on its own. Anyway I am not really sure this
is something crucial or do you consider this particular part really
important? I would prefer to not sneak last minute changes before the
upcoming merge windown just for readability which is even non-trivial.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-04 21:41    [W:0.079 / U:2.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site