[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [[PATCH]] mm: khugepaged: recalculate min_free_kbytes after memory hotplug as expected by khugepaged
On Mon 14-09-20 09:57:02, Vijay Balakrishna wrote:
> On 9/14/2020 7:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 10-09-20 13:47:39, Vijay Balakrishna wrote:
> > > When memory is hotplug added or removed the min_free_kbytes must be
> > > recalculated based on what is expected by khugepaged. Currently
> > > after hotplug, min_free_kbytes will be set to a lower default and higher
> > > default set when THP enabled is lost. This leaves the system with small
> > > min_free_kbytes which isn't suitable for systems especially with network
> > > intensive loads. Typical failure symptoms include HW WATCHDOG reset,
> > > soft lockup hang notices, NETDEVICE WATCHDOG timeouts, and OOM process
> > > kills.
> >
> > Care to explain some more please? The whole point of increasing
> > min_free_kbytes for THP is to get a larger free memory with a hope that
> > huge pages will be more likely to appear. While this might help for
> > other users that need a high order pages it is definitely not the
> > primary reason behind it. Could you provide an example with some more
> > data?
> Thanks Michal. I haven't looked into THP as part of my investigation, so I
> cannot comment.
> In our use case we are hotplug removing ~2GB of 8GB total (on our SoC)
> during normal reboot/shutdown. This memory is hotplug hot-added as movable
> type via systemd late service during start-of-day.
> In our stress test first we ran into HW WATCHDOG recovery, on enabling
> kernel watchdog we started seeing soft lockup hung task notices, failure
> symptons varied, where stack trace of hung tasks sometimes trying to
> allocate GFP_ATOMIC memory, looping in do_notify_resume, NETDEVICE WATCHDOG
> timeouts, OOM process kills etc., During investigation we reran stress test
> without hotplug use case. Surprisingly this run didn't encounter the said
> problems. This led to comparing what is different between the two runs,
> while looking at various globals, studying hotplug code I uncovered the
> issue of failing to restore min_free_kbytes. In particular on our 8GB SoC
> min_free_kbytes went down to 8703 from 22528 after hotplug add.

Did you try to increase min_free_kbytes manually after hot remove? Btw.
I would consider oom killer invocation due to min_free_kbytes really
weird behavior. If anything the higher value would cause more memory
reclaim and potentially oom rather than smaller one.
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-15 10:23    [W:0.078 / U:3.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site