Re: [patch 3/3] mm: page_alloc: fair zone allocator policy

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 05:51:11PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:31:34AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 07/31/2013 10:56 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, it's not really slow path because it could return to normal status
> > > without calling significant slow functions by reset batchcount of
> > > prepare_slowpath.
> > >
> > > I think it's tradeoff and I am biased your approach although we would
> > > lose a little performance because fair aging would recover the loss by
> > > fastpath's overhead. But who knows? Someone has a concern.
> > >
> > > So we should mention about such problems.
> > 
> > If the atomic operation in the fast path turns out to be a problem,
> > I suspect we may be able to fix it by using per-cpu counters, and
> > consolidating those every once in a while.
> > 
> > However, it may be good to see whether there is a problem in the
> > first place, before adding complexity.
> 
> prepare_slowpath is racy anyway, so I don't see the point in wanting
> to do atomic ops in the first place.
> 
> Much better to do the increment in assembly in a single insn to reduce
> the window, but there's no point in using the lock prefix when
> atomic_set will screw it over while somebody does atomic_dec under it
> anyway. atomic_set cannot be atomic, so it'll screw over any
> perfectly accurate accounted atomic_dec anyway.
> 
> I think it should be done in C without atomic_dec or by introducing an
> __atomic_dec that isn't using the lock prefix and just tries to do the
> dec in a single (or as few as possible) asm insn.

Well the reset is not synchronized to the atomic_dec(), but we are
guaranteed that after n page allocations we wake up kswapd, while
without atomic ops we might miss a couple allocations when allocators
race during the RMW.

But we might be able to get away with a small error.

> And because the whole thing is racy, after prepare_slowpath (which I
> think is a too generic name and should be renamed
> reset_zonelist_alloc_batch), this last attempt before invoking
> reclaim:
> 
> 	/* This is the last chance, in general, before the goto nopage. */
> 	page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, nodemask, order, zonelist,
> 			high_zoneidx, alloc_flags & ~ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS,
> 			preferred_zone, migratetype);
> 
> which is trying again with the MIN wmark, should be also altered so
> that we do one pass totally disregarding alloc_batch, just before
> declaring MIN-wmark failure in the allocation, and invoking direct
> reclaim.
> 
> Either we add a (alloc_flags | ALLOC_NO_ALLOC_BATCH) to the above
> alloc_flags in the above call, or we run a second
> get_page_from_freelist if the above one fails with
> ALLOC_NO_ALLOC_BATCH set.
> 
> Otherwise because of the inherent racy behavior of the alloc_batch
> logic, what will happen is that we'll eventually have enough hugepage
> allocations in enough CPUs to hit the alloc_batch limit again in
> between the prepare_slowpath and the above get_page_from_freelist,
> that will lead us to call spurious direct_reclaim invocations, when it
> was just a false negative of alloc_batch.

So the discussion diverged between on-list and off-list.  I suggested
ignoring the alloc_batch in the slowpath completely (since allocations
are very unlikely to fail due to the batches immediately after they
were reset, and the occasional glitch does not matter).  This should
solve the problem of spurious direct reclaim invocations.  The
zone_reclaim_mode allocation sequence would basically be:

1. Try zones in the local node with low watermark while maintaining
   fairness with the allocation batch and invoking zone reclaim if
   necessary

2. If that fails, wake up kswapd and reset the alloc batches on the
   local node

3. Try zones in order of preference with the min watermark, invoking
   zone reclaim if necessary, ignoring allocation batches.

So in the fastpath we try to be local and fair, in the slow path we
are likely to be local and fair, unless we have to spill into remote
nodes.  But then there is nothing we can do anyway.

--
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>