mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Don't continue reclaim if the system have plenty  free memory
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 22:20:13 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <28c262360907070620n3e22801egd4493c149a263ecd@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090707184714.0C73.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8, Size: 7592 bytes --]

Hi, Kosaki.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:48 PM, KOSAKIMotohiro<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:> Subject: [PATCH] Don't continue reclaim if the system have plenty free memory>> On concurrent reclaim situation, if one reclaimer makes OOM, maybe other> reclaimer can stop reclaim because OOM killer makes enough free memory.>> But current kernel doesn't have its logic. Then, we can face following accidental> 2nd OOM scenario.>> 1. System memory is used by only one big process.> 2. memory shortage occur and concurrent reclaim start.> 3. One reclaimer makes OOM and OOM killer kill above big process.> 4. Almost reclaimable page will be freed.> 5. Another reclaimer can't find any reclaimable page because those pages are>   already freed.> 6. Then, system makes accidental and unnecessary 2nd OOM killer.>
Did you see the this situation ?Why I ask is that we have already a routine for preventing parallelOOM killing in __alloc_pages_may_oom.
Couldn't it protect your scenario ?If it can't, Could you explain the scenario in more detail ?
I think first we try to modify old routine with efficient.
>> Plus, nowaday datacenter system have badboy process monitoring system and> it kill too much memory consumption process.> But it don't stop other reclaimer and it makes accidental 2nd OOM by the> same reason.>>> This patch have one good side effect. it increase reclaim depended benchmark> performance.>> e.g.> =====> % ./hackbench 140 process 100>> before:>        Time: 93.361> after:>        Time: 28.799>>>> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>> --->  fs/buffer.c          |    2 +->  include/linux/swap.h |    3 ++->  mm/page_alloc.c      |    3 ++->  mm/vmscan.c          |   29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++->  4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)>> Index: b/mm/vmscan.c> ===================================================================> --- a/mm/vmscan.c> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ struct scan_control {>         */>        nodemask_t      *nodemask;>> +       /* Caller's preferred zone. */> +       struct zone     *preferred_zone;> +>        /* Pluggable isolate pages callback */>        unsigned long (*isolate_pages)(unsigned long nr, struct list_head *dst,>                        unsigned long *scanned, int order, int mode,> @@ -1535,6 +1538,10 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, st>        unsigned long nr_reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;>        unsigned long swap_cluster_max = sc->swap_cluster_max;>        int noswap = 0;> +       int classzone_idx = 0;> +> +       if (sc->preferred_zone)> +               classzone_idx = zone_idx(sc->preferred_zone);>>        /* If we have no swap space, do not bother scanning anon pages. */>        if (!sc->may_swap || (nr_swap_pages <= 0)) {> @@ -1583,6 +1590,20 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, st>                if (nr_reclaimed > swap_cluster_max &&>                        priority < DEF_PRIORITY && !current_is_kswapd())>                        break;> +> +               /*> +                * Now, we have plenty free memory.> +                * Perhaps, big processes exited or they killed by OOM killer.> +                * To continue reclaim doesn't make any sense.> +                */> +               if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES) >> +                   zone_lru_pages(zone) &&> +                   zone_watermark_ok(zone, sc->order, high_wmark_pages(zone),> +                                     classzone_idx, 0)) {> +                       /* fake result for reclaim stop */> +                       nr_reclaimed += swap_cluster_max;> +                       break;> +               }>        }>>        sc->nr_reclaimed = nr_reclaimed;> @@ -1767,7 +1788,8 @@ out:>  }>>  unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order,> -                               gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask)> +                               gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask,> +                               struct zone *preferred_zone)>  {>        struct scan_control sc = {>                .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,> @@ -1780,6 +1802,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z>                .mem_cgroup = NULL,>                .isolate_pages = isolate_pages_global,>                .nodemask = nodemask,> +               .preferred_zone = preferred_zone,>        };>>        return do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, &sc);> @@ -1808,6 +1831,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag>        sc.gfp_mask = (gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) |>                        (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);>        zonelist = NODE_DATA(numa_node_id())->node_zonelists;> +       first_zones_zonelist(zonelist,> +                            gfp_zone(sc.gfp_mask), NULL,> +                            &sc.preferred_zone);> +>        return do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, &sc);>  }>  #endif> Index: b/fs/buffer.c> ===================================================================> --- a/fs/buffer.c> +++ b/fs/buffer.c> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static void free_more_memory(void)>                                                &zone);>                if (zone)>                        try_to_free_pages(node_zonelist(nid, GFP_NOFS), 0,> -                                               GFP_NOFS, NULL);> +                                         GFP_NOFS, NULL, zone);>        }>  }>> Index: b/include/linux/swap.h> ===================================================================> --- a/include/linux/swap.h> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h> @@ -213,7 +213,8 @@ static inline void lru_cache_add_active_>>  /* linux/mm/vmscan.c */>  extern unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order,> -                                       gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *mask);> +                                      gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *mask,> +                                      struct zone *preferred_zone);>  extern unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *mem,>                                                  gfp_t gfp_mask, bool noswap,>                                                  unsigned int swappiness);> Index: b/mm/page_alloc.c> ===================================================================> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c> @@ -1629,7 +1629,8 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_m>        reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;>        p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;>> -       *did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order, gfp_mask, nodemask);> +       *did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order, gfp_mask,> +                                              nodemask, preferred_zone);>>        p->reclaim_state = NULL;>        lockdep_clear_current_reclaim_state();>>>


-- Kind regards,Minchan Kimÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥

  reply	other threads:[~2009-07-07 13:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-07  9:40 [RFC PATCH 0/2] fix unnecessary accidental OOM problem on concurrent reclaim KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07  9:47 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 13:23   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-07 18:59   ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-08  3:19     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09  1:51       ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages in a zone Rik van Riel
2009-07-09  2:47         ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09  3:07           ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09  7:01             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-09  8:42               ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09 11:07                 ` Minchan Kim
2009-07-09  6:39         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 23:39   ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages Minchan Kim
2009-07-09  3:12     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07  9:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] Don't continue reclaim if the system have plenty free memory KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 13:20   ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2009-07-09  5:08     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-09 10:58       ` Minchan Kim
2009-07-13  0:37         ` KOSAKI Motohiro

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=28c262360907070620n3e22801egd4493c149a263ecd@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®