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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 872CEC3A59F for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C57121852 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="Tyq+oZU/" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3C57121852 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=shutemov.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BB9E26B057E; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B6AE96B057F; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:15:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A816C6B0580; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:15:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0156.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.156]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884226B057E for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 313FF4FFA for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:15:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75864626040.09.women63_3165ae98f6706 X-HE-Tag: women63_3165ae98f6706 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9132 Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com (mail-ed1-f66.google.com [209.85.208.66]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id h8so26463425edv.7 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/98aFtDRUzMMQzgj3hGxbdw5g4xxWHsQPreE+s7Y++8=; b=Tyq+oZU/Q97T+VhSiz86va8DU1BPY34C1kPTttITyOw7MtHiPzrMCjS+lHcNFEipf0 JNINg2s/d8lRjj1fNjTdbJhXNeorLfCbh0TxXZQ8EjmmbYvrzdJOzt4SxB/iGagFXf3g 642ISLcDS1S3OGdIZ4qx9eoKFApFSRecsh/dueXsJ57vTWE728frcp5hggEAO1DDT3lU w7JG+TVnzrn5H9YCks1DZqmzyPWQ5aLzA6tdBiruKXG4VAkSGzwnkMxDY3Y8NZVFAKhz RAdB4JV9wFGaNcq0XfFjMtgfxpsmxAUxk7fbAQTX4CuNDbWbxpcXt/Sg5+Abiuj5hhq9 ZFFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/98aFtDRUzMMQzgj3hGxbdw5g4xxWHsQPreE+s7Y++8=; b=rOiQCE4AxOkIlXpky/cAd5SkUgfEXakjY1FHC++Ufcpis8sopDSjd4rCFuLj4MFQtS a6urOAG+SymHciYxcjXIOrlUrK5hnt+qixCDCbVA7Ojv+lOLmiyp5OTbWX/1LkiAlExT QMYCXTxyorofuSOd8KVJqDPklCXrj5YWDJ4OuviW+U8X/bJj8yRUG+z1QObKR0noA7tv gyT9QycD1dzY9zrT/RVV4tHzlsH/uqnR3fgygkVdlISRMVNZNSMVcGR626GWIxtRycb2 4dIiaYV797+ko6Fp6xeojUVhqmyNbM9jAYecKEPCAEHa4pEnK1HSUKpXuOyAivjFqdhI 32LA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXzrkm42T1wm8g0YpN7bhmo64PO/Se2VVT7xOCh+lKK0H/YA8fR Xo8aafH3C0aHXkgwkWWRZ13wPg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJEDEwL3RgLLyfDJ45KqKcx6MamnkrzAd404V/jMnDlt0z5dpvOZXZfa5RQ8KERXKUaxNRBA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:698f:: with SMTP id i15mr16351249ejr.247.1566825337784; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o21sm2947871eje.81.2019.08.26.06.15.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5DC6C10050C; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:15:38 +0300 (+03) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:15:38 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Michal Hocko 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: <20190826131538.64twqx3yexmhp6nf@box> References: <1566410125-66011-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190822080434.GF12785@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190822152934.w6ztolutdix6kbvc@box> <20190826074035.GD7538@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190826074035.GD7538@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 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 Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:40:35AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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? Unmapped completely pages will be freed with current code. Deferred split only applies to partly mapped THPs: at least on 4k of the THP is still mapped somewhere. > > 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? Yes. You would still need deferred split even if you *try* to split the page on the spot. split_huge_page() can fail (due to pin on the page) and you will need to have a way to try again later. You'll not win anything in complexity by trying split_huge_page() immediately. I would ague you'll create much more complexity. > > 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? Partly mapped THP is not common case at all. To get to this point you will need to create a mapping, fault in THP and then unmap part of it. It requires very active memory management on application side. This kind of applications usually knows if THP is a fit for them. > I am still not sure that waiting for the memory reclaim is a general > win. It wins CPU cycles by not doing the work that is likely unneeded. split_huge_page() is not particularly lightweight operation from locking and atomic ops POV. > 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? Example? Sure. Compiling mm/memory.c in my setup generates 8 deferred split. 4 of them triggered from exit path. The rest 4 comes from MADV_DONTNEED. It doesn't make sense to convert any of them to in-place split: for short-lived process any split if waste of time without any benefit. -- Kirill A. Shutemov