linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Weijie Yang <weijie.yang@samsung.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lowmemorykiller: Avoid excessive/redundant calling of LMK
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:03:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150115170324.GD7008@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1421079554-30899-1-git-send-email-cpandya@codeaurora.org>

On Mon 12-01-15 21:49:14, Chintan Pandya wrote:
> The global shrinker will invoke lowmem_shrink in a loop.
> The loop will be run (total_scan_pages/batch_size) times.
> The default batch_size will be 128 which will make
> shrinker invoking 100s of times. LMK does meaningful
> work only during first 2-3 times and then rest of the
> invocations are just CPU cycle waste. Fix that by returning
> to the shrinker with SHRINK_STOP when LMK doesn't find any
> more work to do. The deciding factor here is, no process
> found in the selected LMK bucket or memory conditions are
> sane.

lowmemory killer is broken by design and this one of the examples which
shows why. It simply doesn't fit into shrinkers concept.

The count_object callback simply lies and tells the core that all
the reclaimable LRU pages are scanable and gives it this as a number
which the core uses for total_scan. scan_objects callback then happily
ignore nr_to_reclaim and does its one time job where it iterates over
_all_ tasks and picks up the victim and returns its rss as a return
value. This is just a subset of LRU pages of course so it continues
looping until total_scan goes down to 0 finally.

If this really has to be a shrinker then, shouldn't it evaluate the OOM
situation in the count callback and return non zero only if OOM and then
the scan callback would kill and return nr_to_reclaim.

Or even better wouldn't it be much better to use vmpressure to wake
up a kernel module which would simply check the situation and kill
something?

Please do not put only cosmetic changes on top of broken concept and try
to think about a proper solution that is what staging is for AFAIU.

The code is in this state for quite some time and I would really hate if
it got merged just because it is in staging for too long and it is used
out there.

> Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> index b545d3d..5bf483f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static unsigned long lowmem_scan(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  	if (min_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX + 1) {
>  		lowmem_print(5, "lowmem_scan %lu, %x, return 0\n",
>  			     sc->nr_to_scan, sc->gfp_mask);
> -		return 0;
> +		return SHRINK_STOP;
>  	}
>  
>  	selected_oom_score_adj = min_score_adj;
> @@ -163,6 +163,9 @@ static unsigned long lowmem_scan(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc)
>  		set_tsk_thread_flag(selected, TIF_MEMDIE);
>  		send_sig(SIGKILL, selected, 0);
>  		rem += selected_tasksize;
> +	} else {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		return SHRINK_STOP;
>  	}
>  
>  	lowmem_print(4, "lowmem_scan %lu, %x, return %lu\n",
> -- 
> Chintan Pandya
> 
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
> member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> 
> --
> 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>

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-15 17:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-12 16:19 Chintan Pandya
2015-01-15 17:03 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2015-01-30  0:44   ` John Stultz
2015-01-30  2:04     ` Rom Lemarchand
2015-01-30  2:08     ` Rom Lemarchand
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-01-12 16:08 Chintan Pandya
2015-01-12 16:14 ` Chintan Pandya

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=20150115170324.GD7008@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cpandya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=weijie.yang@samsung.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