From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F498C43141 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24A027EFD for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:50:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B24A027EFD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936340AbeF2MuU (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:50:20 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:45944 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935019AbeF2MuQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:50:16 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5TCeBo6129069 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:50:16 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jwmymrdfq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:50:16 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:50:14 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.28) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:50:11 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5TCoANZ14221710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:50:10 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B600EB206B; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80597B2067; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.80.206.224]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1429A16CA2E1; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 05:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 05:52:18 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Michal Hocko Cc: Tetsuo Handa , David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Bring OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM killer. Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1529493638-6389-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20180621073142.GA10465@dhcp22.suse.cz> <2d8c3056-1bc2-9a32-d745-ab328fd587a1@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20180626170345.GA3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180627072207.GB32348@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180627143125.GW3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180628113942.GD32348@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180628213105.GP3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180629090419.GD13860@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180629090419.GD13860@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18062912-0040-0000-0000-000004471593 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009277; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01054022; UDB=6.00540481; IPR=6.00831944; MB=3.00021927; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-29 12:50:13 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18062912-0041-0000-0000-0000084D2EAB Message-Id: <20180629125218.GX3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-29_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806290138 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:04:19AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 28-06-18 14:31:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 01:39:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 27-06-18 07:31:25, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:22:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Tue 26-06-18 10:03:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > 3. Something else? > > > > > > > > > > How hard it would be to use a different API than oom notifiers? E.g. a > > > > > shrinker which just kicks all the pending callbacks if the reclaim > > > > > priority reaches low values (e.g. 0)? > > > > > > > > Beats me. What is a shrinker? ;-) > > > > > > This is a generich mechanism to reclaim memory that is not on standard > > > LRU lists. Lwn.net surely has some nice coverage (e.g. > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/548092/). > > > > "In addition, there is little agreement over what a call to a shrinker > > really means or how the called subsystem should respond." ;-) > > > > Is this set up using register_shrinker() in mm/vmscan.c? I am guessing > > Yes, exactly. You are supposed to implement the two methods in struct > shrink_control > > > that the many mentions of shrinker in DRM are irrelevant. > > > > If my guess is correct, the API seems a poor fit for RCU. I can > > produce an approximate number of RCU callbacks for ->count_objects(), > > but a given callback might free a lot of memory or none at all. Plus, > > to actually have ->scan_objects() free them before returning, I would > > need to use something like rcu_barrier(), which might involve longer > > delays than desired.` > > Well, I am not yet sure how good fit this is because I still do not > understand the underlying problem your notifier is trying to solve. So I > will get back to this once that is settled. > > > > Or am I missing something here? > > > > > > More seriously, could you please point me at an exemplary shrinker > > > > use case so I can see what is involved? > > > > > > Well, I am not really sure what is the objective of the oom notifier to > > > point you to the right direction. IIUC you just want to kick callbacks > > > to be handled sooner under a heavy memory pressure, right? How is that > > > achieved? Kick a worker? > > > > That is achieved by enqueuing a non-lazy callback on each CPU's callback > > list, but only for those CPUs having non-empty lists. This causes > > CPUs with lists containing only lazy callbacks to be more aggressive, > > in particular, it prevents such CPUs from hanging out idle for seconds > > at a time while they have callbacks on their lists. > > > > The enqueuing happens via an IPI to the CPU in question. > > I am afraid this is too low level for my to understand what is going on > here. What are lazy callbacks and why do they need any specific action > when we are getting close to OOM? I mean, I do understand that we might > have many callers of call_rcu and free memory lazily. But there is quite > a long way before we start the reclaim until we reach the OOM killer path. > So why don't those callbacks get called during that time period? How are > their triggered when we are not hitting the OOM path? They surely cannot > sit there for ever, right? Can we trigger them sooner? Maybe the > shrinker is not the best fit but we have a retry feedback loop in the page > allocator, maybe we can kick this processing from there. The effect of RCU's current OOM code is to speed up callback invocation by at most a few seconds (assuming no stalled CPUs, in which case it is not possible to speed up callback invocation). Given that, I should just remove RCU's OOM code entirely? Thanx, Paul