From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A3BC3A59E for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4973E2080C for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:40:39 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4973E2080C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E16536B053F; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DC7336B0541; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:40:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CDCC46B0542; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:40:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0249.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.249]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8F66B053F for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 490115003 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:40:38 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75863781756.29.mask39_229e0855a261f X-HE-Tag: mask39_229e0855a261f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5502 Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf42.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:40:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F388AEE1; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:40:35 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Vlastimil Babka , kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, Yang Shi , hannes@cmpxchg.org, rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH -mm] mm: account deferred split THPs into MemAvailable Message-ID: <20190826074035.GD7538@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1566410125-66011-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190822080434.GF12785@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190822152934.w6ztolutdix6kbvc@box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190822152934.w6ztolutdix6kbvc@box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu 22-08-19 18:29:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 02:56:56PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 8/22/19 10:04 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 22-08-19 01:55:25, Yang Shi wrote: > > >> Available memory is one of the most important metrics for memory > > >> pressure. > > > > > > I would disagree with this statement. It is a rough estimate that tells > > > how much memory you can allocate before going into a more expensive > > > reclaim (mostly swapping). Allocating that amount still might result in > > > direct reclaim induced stalls. I do realize that this is simple metric > > > that is attractive to use and works in many cases though. > > > > > >> Currently, the deferred split THPs are not accounted into > > >> available memory, but they are reclaimable actually, like reclaimable > > >> slabs. > > >> > > >> And, they seems very common with the common workloads when THP is > > >> enabled. A simple run with MariaDB test of mmtest with THP enabled as > > >> always shows it could generate over fifteen thousand deferred split THPs > > >> (accumulated around 30G in one hour run, 75% of 40G memory for my VM). > > >> It looks worth accounting in MemAvailable. > > > > > > OK, this makes sense. But your above numbers are really worrying. > > > Accumulating such a large amount of pages that are likely not going to > > > be used is really bad. They are essentially blocking any higher order > > > allocations and also push the system towards more memory pressure. > > > > > > IIUC deferred splitting is mostly a workaround for nasty locking issues > > > during splitting, right? This is not really an optimization to cache > > > THPs for reuse or something like that. What is the reason this is not > > > done from a worker context? At least THPs which would be freed > > > completely sound like a good candidate for kworker tear down, no? > > > > Agreed that it's a good question. For Kirill :) Maybe with kworker approach we > > also wouldn't need the cgroup awareness? > > I don't remember a particular locking issue, but I cannot say there's > none :P > > It's artifact from decoupling PMD split from compound page split: the same > page can be mapped multiple times with combination of PMDs and PTEs. Split > of one PMD doesn't need to trigger split of all PMDs and underlying > compound page. > > Other consideration is the fact that page split can fail and we need to > have fallback for this case. > > Also in most cases THP split would be just waste of time if we would do > them at the spot. If you don't have memory pressure it's better to wait > until process termination: less pages on LRU is still beneficial. This might be true but the reality shows that a lot of THPs might be waiting for the memory pressure that is essentially freeable on the spot. So I am not really convinced that "less pages on LRUs" is really a plausible justification. Can we free at least those THPs which are unmapped completely without any pte mappings? > Main source of partly mapped THPs comes from exit path. When PMD mapping > of THP got split across multiple VMAs (for instance due to mprotect()), > in exit path we unmap PTEs belonging to one VMA just before unmapping the > rest of the page. It would be total waste of time to split the page in > this scenario. > > The whole deferred split thing still looks as a reasonable compromise > to me. Even when it leads to all other problems mentioned in this and memcg deferred reclaim series? > We may have some kind of watermark and try to keep the number of deferred > split THP under it. But it comes with own set of problems: what if all > these pages are pinned for really long time and effectively not available > for split. Again, why cannot we simply push the freeing where there are no other mappings? This should be pretty common case, right? I am still not sure that waiting for the memory reclaim is a general win. Do you have any examples of workloads that measurably benefit from this lazy approach without any other downsides? In other words how exactly do we measure cost/benefit model of this heuristic? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs