From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@fuchsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@gmail.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@oetiker.ch>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@kvack.org\"" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] vmscan: Take order into consideration when deciding if kswapd is in trouble
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:54:29 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091113142608.33B9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1258054235-3208-6-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
> If reclaim fails to make sufficient progress, the priority is raised.
> Once the priority is higher, kswapd starts waiting on congestion.
> However, on systems with large numbers of high-order atomics due to
> crappy network cards, it's important that kswapd keep working in
> parallel to save their sorry ass.
>
> This patch takes into account the order kswapd is reclaiming at before
> waiting on congestion. The higher the order, the longer it is before
> kswapd considers itself to be in trouble. The impact is that kswapd
> works harder in parallel rather than depending on direct reclaimers or
> atomic allocations to fail.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index ffa1766..5e200f1 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static int sleeping_prematurely(int order, long remaining)
> static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
> {
> int all_zones_ok;
> - int priority;
> + int priority, congestion_priority;
> int i;
> unsigned long total_scanned;
> struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
> @@ -1967,6 +1967,16 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
> */
> int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
>
> + /*
> + * When priority reaches congestion_priority, kswapd will sleep
> + * for a short time while congestion clears. The higher the
> + * order being reclaimed, the less likely kswapd will go to
> + * sleep as high-order allocations are harder to reclaim and
> + * stall direct reclaimers longer
> + */
> + congestion_priority = DEF_PRIORITY - 2;
> + congestion_priority -= min(congestion_priority, sc.order);
This calculation mean
sc.order congestion_priority scan-pages
---------------------------------------------------------
0 10 1/1024 * zone-mem
1 9 1/512 * zone-mem
2 8 1/256 * zone-mem
3 7 1/128 * zone-mem
4 6 1/64 * zone-mem
5 5 1/32 * zone-mem
6 4 1/16 * zone-mem
7 3 1/8 * zone-mem
8 2 1/4 * zone-mem
9 1 1/2 * zone-mem
10 0 1 * zone-mem
11+ 0 1 * zone-mem
I feel this is too agressive. The intention of this congestion_wait()
is to prevent kswapd use 100% cpu time. but the above promotion seems
break it.
example,
ia64 have 256MB hugepage (i.e. order=14). it mean kswapd never sleep.
example2,
order-3 (i.e. PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) makes one of most inefficent
reclaim, because it doesn't use lumpy recliam.
I've seen 128GB size zone, it mean 1/128 = 1GB. oh well, kswapd definitely
waste cpu time 100%.
> +
> loop_again:
> total_scanned = 0;
> sc.nr_reclaimed = 0;
> @@ -2092,7 +2102,7 @@ loop_again:
> * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble. Take a nap, then take
> * another pass across the zones.
> */
> - if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> + if (total_scanned && priority < congestion_priority)
> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
Instead, How about this?
---
mm/vmscan.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 64e4388..937e90d 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1938,6 +1938,7 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
* free_pages == high_wmark_pages(zone).
*/
int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
+ int has_under_min_watermark_zone = 0;
loop_again:
total_scanned = 0;
@@ -2057,6 +2058,15 @@ loop_again:
if (total_scanned > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 2 &&
total_scanned > sc.nr_reclaimed + sc.nr_reclaimed / 2)
sc.may_writepage = 1;
+
+ /*
+ * We are still under min water mark. it mean we have
+ * GFP_ATOMIC allocation failure risk. Hurry up!
+ */
+ if (!zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, min_wmark_pages(zone),
+ end_zone, 0))
+ has_under_min_watermark_zone = 1;
+
}
if (all_zones_ok)
break; /* kswapd: all done */
@@ -2064,7 +2074,8 @@ loop_again:
* OK, kswapd is getting into trouble. Take a nap, then take
* another pass across the zones.
*/
- if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
+ if (total_scanned && (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) &&
+ !has_under_min_watermark_zone)
congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
/*
--
1.6.2.5
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-13 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-12 19:30 [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate fix V3 Mel Gorman
2009-11-12 19:30 ` [PATCH 1/5] page allocator: Always wake kswapd when restarting an allocation attempt after direct reclaim failed Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 5:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-13 13:55 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-12 19:30 ` [PATCH 2/5] page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use ALLOC_HARDER Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 5:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-13 13:56 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-12 19:30 ` [PATCH 3/5] page allocator: Wait on both sync and async congestion after direct reclaim Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 11:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-13 11:55 ` Jens Axboe
2009-11-13 12:28 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 13:32 ` Jens Axboe
2009-11-13 13:41 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-11-13 15:22 ` Chris Mason
2009-11-13 14:16 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-20 14:56 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-12 19:30 ` [PATCH 4/5] vmscan: Have kswapd sleep for a short interval and double check it should be asleep Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 10:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-13 14:13 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 18:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-13 18:17 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-14 9:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-14 15:46 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-17 11:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-17 11:44 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-17 12:18 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-17 12:25 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-18 5:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-17 10:34 ` [PATCH] vmscan: Have kswapd sleep for a short interval and double check it should be asleep fix 1 Mel Gorman
2009-11-18 5:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-12 19:30 ` [PATCH 5/5] vmscan: Take order into consideration when deciding if kswapd is in trouble Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 9:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2009-11-13 13:54 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 14:48 ` Minchan Kim
2009-11-13 18:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-13 18:15 ` [PATCH] vmscan: Stop kswapd waiting on congestion when the min watermark is not being met Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 18:26 ` Frans Pop
2009-11-13 18:33 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-13 20:03 ` [PATCH] vmscan: Stop kswapd waiting on congestion when the min watermark is not being met V2 Mel Gorman
2009-11-26 14:45 ` Tobias Oetiker
2009-11-29 7:42 ` still getting allocation failures (was Re: [PATCH] vmscan: Stop kswapd waiting on congestion when the min watermark is not being met V2) Tobi Oetiker
2009-12-02 11:32 ` Mel Gorman
2009-12-02 21:30 ` Tobias Oetiker
2009-12-03 20:26 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-12-14 5:59 ` Tobias Oetiker
2009-12-14 8:49 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2009-11-13 18:36 ` [PATCH] vmscan: Stop kswapd waiting on congestion when the min watermark is not being met Rik van Riel
2009-11-13 14:38 ` [PATCH 5/5] vmscan: Take order into consideration when deciding if kswapd is in trouble Minchan Kim
2009-11-13 12:41 ` Minchan Kim
2009-11-13 9:04 ` [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate fix V3 Frans Pop
2009-11-16 17:57 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-13 12:47 ` Tobias Oetiker
2009-11-13 13:37 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-15 12:07 ` Karol Lewandowski
2009-11-16 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2009-11-16 12:08 ` Karol Lewandowski
2009-11-16 14:32 ` Karol Lewandowski
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=20091113142608.33B9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=karol.k.lewandowski@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lists@fuchsschwanzdomain.de \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=skraw@ithnet.com \
--cc=tobi@oetiker.ch \
/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