From: zhongjinji <zhongjinji@honor.com>
To: <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <feng.han@honor.com>,
<lenb@kernel.org>, <liam.howlett@oracle.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, <liulu.liu@honor.com>,
<lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>, <pavel@kernel.org>,
<rafael@kernel.org>, <rientjes@google.com>,
<shakeel.butt@linux.dev>, <surenb@google.com>,
<tglx@linutronix.de>, <zhongjinji@honor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] mm/oom_kill: The OOM reaper traverses the VMA maple tree in reverse order
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 12:06:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250911040609.6126-1-zhongjinji@honor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aMGXsenuvA682-Dc@tiehlicka>
> On Wed 10-09-25 22:37:26, zhongjinji wrote:
> > Although the oom_reaper is delayed and it gives the oom victim chance to
> > clean up its address space this might take a while especially for
> > processes with a large address space footprint. In those cases
> > oom_reaper might start racing with the dying task and compete for shared
> > resources - e.g. page table lock contention has been observed.
> >
> > Reduce those races by reaping the oom victim from the other end of the
> > address space.
> >
> > It is also a significant improvement for process_mrelease(). When a process
> > is killed, process_mrelease is used to reap the killed process and often
> > runs concurrently with the dying task. The test data shows that after
> > applying the patch, lock contention is greatly reduced during the procedure
> > of reaping the killed process.
> >
> > The test is based on arm64.
> >
> > Without the patch:
> > |--99.57%-- oom_reaper
> > | |--0.28%-- [hit in function]
> > | |--73.58%-- unmap_page_range
> > | | |--8.67%-- [hit in function]
> > | | |--41.59%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> > | | |--29.47%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > | | |--16.11%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> > | | |--1.66%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > | | |--0.74%-- free_swap_and_cache_nr
> > | | |--0.69%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > | |--19.94%-- tlb_finish_mmu
> > | |--3.21%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > | |--1.16%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > | |--1.16%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > | |--0.36%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> >
> > With the patch:
> > |--99.53%-- oom_reaper
> > | |--55.77%-- unmap_page_range
> > | | |--20.49%-- [hit in function]
> > | | |--58.30%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > | | |--11.48%-- tlb_flush_mmu
> > | | |--3.33%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > | | |--2.65%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > | | |--1.37%-- _raw_spin_lock
> > | | |--0.68%-- __mod_lruvec_page_state
> > | | |--0.51%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
> > | |--32.21%-- tlb_finish_mmu
> > | |--6.93%-- folio_remove_rmap_ptes
> > | |--1.90%-- __tlb_remove_folio_pages
> > | |--1.55%-- folio_mark_accessed
> > | |--0.69%-- __pte_offset_map_lock
>
> I do not object to the patch but this profile is not telling much really
> as already pointed out in prior versions as we do not know the base
> those percentages are from. It would be really much more helpful to
> measure the elapse time for the oom_repaer and exit_mmap to see those
> gains.
I got it. I will reference the perf report like this [1] in the changelog.
link : https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250908121503.20960-1-zhongjinji@honor.com/ [1]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-11 4:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-10 14:37 [PATCH v9 0/2] Improvements to Victim Process Thawing and OOM Reaper Traversal Order zhongjinji
2025-09-10 14:37 ` [PATCH v9 1/2] mm/oom_kill: Thaw the entire OOM victim process zhongjinji
2025-09-10 15:15 ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-10 15:23 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2025-09-11 23:55 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-09-10 14:37 ` [PATCH v9 2/2] mm/oom_kill: The OOM reaper traverses the VMA maple tree in reverse order zhongjinji
2025-09-10 15:22 ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-11 4:06 ` zhongjinji [this message]
2025-09-11 7:31 ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-15 16:26 ` zhongjinji
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=20250911040609.6126-1-zhongjinji@honor.com \
--to=zhongjinji@honor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=feng.han@honor.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=liam.howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liulu.liu@honor.com \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=pavel@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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