From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, compaction: make sure freeing scanner isn't persistently expensive
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:31:59 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160630073158.GA30114@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1606291349320.145590@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:55:55PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> > On 06/29/2016 03:39 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > It's possible that the freeing scanner can be consistently expensive if
> > > memory is well compacted toward the end of the zone with few free pages
> > > available in that area.
> > >
> > > If all zone memory is synchronously compacted, say with
> > > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory, and thp is faulted, it is possible to
> > > iterate a massive amount of memory even with the per-zone cached free
> > > position.
> > >
> > > For example, after compacting all memory and faulting thp for heap, it
> > > was observed that compact_free_scanned increased as much as 892518911 4KB
> > > pages while compact_stall only increased by 171. The freeing scanner
> > > iterated ~20GB of memory for each compaction stall.
> > >
> > > To address this, if too much memory is spanned on the freeing scanner's
> > > freelist when releasing back to the system, return the low pfn rather than
> > > the high pfn. It's declared that the freeing scanner will become too
> > > expensive if the high pfn is used, so use the low pfn instead.
> > >
> > > The amount of memory declared as too expensive to iterate is subjectively
> > > chosen at COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX << PAGE_SHIFT, which is 512MB with 4KB
> > > pages.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> >
> > Hmm, I don't know. Seems it only works around one corner case of a larger
> > issue. The cost for the scanning was already paid, the patch prevents it from
> > being paid again, but only until the scanners are reset.
> >
>
> The only point of the per-zone cached pfn positions is to avoid doing the
> same work again unnecessarily. Having the last 16GB of memory at the end
> of a zone being completely unfree is the same as a single page in the last
> pageblock free. The number of PageBuddy pages in that amount of memory
> can be irrelevant up to COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX. We simply can't afford to
> scan 16GB of memory looking for free pages.
We need to find a root cause of this problem, first.
I guess that this problem would happen when isolate_freepages_block()
early stop due to watermark check (if your patch is applied to your
kernel). If scanner meets, cached pfn will be reset and your patch
doesn't have any effect. So, I guess that scanner doesn't meet.
We enter the compaction with enough free memory so stop in
isolate_freepages_block() should be unlikely event but your number
shows that it happens frequently?
Maybe, if we change all watermark check on compaction.c to use
min_wmark, problem would be disappeared.
Anyway, could you check how often isolate_freepages_block() is stopped
and why?
In addition, I worry that your previous patch that makes
isolate_freepages_block() stop when watermark doesn't meet would cause
compaction non-progress. Amount of free memory can be flutuated so
watermark fail would be temporaral. We need to break compaction in
this case? It would decrease compaction success rate if there is a
memory hogger in parallel. Any idea?
Thanks.
>
> > Note also that THP's no longer do direct compaction by default in recent
> > kernels.
> >
> > To fully solve the freepage scanning issue, we should probably pick and finish
> > one of the proposed reworks from Joonsoo or myself, or the approach that
> > replaces free scanner with direct freelist allocations.
> >
>
> Feel free to post the patches, but I believe this simple change makes
> release_freepages() exceedingly better and can better target memory for
> the freeing scanner.
>
> --
> 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>
--
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:[~2016-06-30 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-29 1:39 David Rientjes
2016-06-29 6:53 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-06-29 20:55 ` David Rientjes
2016-06-30 7:31 ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2016-06-30 7:42 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-06-30 8:16 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-07-11 23:01 ` David Rientjes
2016-07-18 5:44 ` Joonsoo Kim
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=20160630073158.GA30114@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE \
--to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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