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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863C7C4708D for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 01:52:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 92D196B0071; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8DD056B0073; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:52:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7CC6D6B0074; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:52:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7028E6B0071 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484EC120523 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 01:52:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80192063280.12.44A69BA Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06b.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by imf14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058F3100006 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 01:52:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1669859549; x=1701395549; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=Vk+5RQ6gIF2GbcRS2BKVQnyGwTJY0fP3SV/tnFs8Kn8=; b=lQoCuEEgktqDxAdNqOKysFgCkB7Fg23XarQksfg1XLY+mGlUjBG5ChRb jw19aMnk+UisfpcN9jT0e4kPUOZ1N5onOdZiTsvAhIxG0WmUzOnmuWVQq 8z8vwBcUvbLXfOzwL0QWwGtfF1ohniHLL3LGv+HCg2hIfdP1iHzaYXJEY fsQJp1JpfEbmhb0AjF3M2B/eiaUFlcmqpj7D7ZfP+kE17S13jvyI4CjzA Y6jeRSh5GDDMuprqjtVzr5CkMOIQcj8XY4DWQETU4Y3WcVByKQ2DUn4V2 UaYd2xRlTUn0/t/kp1lgojZwh53nxluUCjOKD5CrMFQLEbePZvyp7t/S9 Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10547"; a="377727131" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,207,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="377727131" Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2022 17:52:09 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10547"; a="889529302" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,207,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="889529302" Received: from yhuang6-desk2.sh.intel.com (HELO yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com) ([10.238.208.55]) by fmsmga006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2022 17:52:05 -0800 From: "Huang, Ying" To: Yang Shi Cc: Johannes Weiner , Mina Almasry , Yang Shi , Yosry Ahmed , Tim Chen , weixugc@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, gthelen@google.com, fvdl@google.com, Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V1] mm: Disable demotion from proactive reclaim In-Reply-To: (Yang Shi's message of "Wed, 30 Nov 2022 10:49:15 -0800") References: <20221122203850.2765015-1-almasrymina@google.com> <874juonbmv.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <87a64ad1iz.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <87ilixatyw.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 09:51:08 +0800 Message-ID: <87h6yfao37.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1669859549; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=IIs7AmTuLWMxThc2n9mWkCkIMxjouQgWuj+12stivXbUPWUB44yDi54vtdWbVrTADs4qKQ keJMZd6mWiOcVfZ1fk9ULL3oppNAcJKAPQ+dG+3hJBra9HIUL44XKXKqw3wxC9/bI0j+X3 4HLtXhLmBCYk4xBzGsy2fzJ8Gty4nhE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf14.hostedemail.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=lQoCuEEg; spf=pass (imf14.hostedemail.com: domain of ying.huang@intel.com designates 134.134.136.31 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ying.huang@intel.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1669859549; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=6mKblYA9N53NCgF0BVs3dfaXtJxqsiOGkBuJXy5DtxU=; b=Jr9enxfb6ztaSx7Wct/jyoDgMvv0fg+uoBVLpA3HvtlzdV5RA5Uy9hZlJLswvR+rRHo2X/ Ghg4uHji0A3bz1yfXNFtNlOVPa+qFZwFGD4oAriQNyOPzAjUQLD5eKZTrSroaW/TMueu1O g5wbcytR52S1+pnIG+jOyfPeU0dAEmU= X-HE-Tag: 1669859548-486466 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: Yang Shi writes: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 9:33 PM Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> Yang Shi writes: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 4:54 PM Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> >> >> Yang Shi writes: >> >> >> >> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 9:52 PM Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, Johannes, >> >> >> >> >> >> Johannes Weiner writes: >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The fallback to reclaim actually strikes me as wrong. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Think of reclaim as 'demoting' the pages to the storage tier. If we >> >> >> > have a RAM -> CXL -> storage hierarchy, we should demote from RAM to >> >> >> > CXL and from CXL to storage. If we reclaim a page from RAM, it means >> >> >> > we 'demote' it directly from RAM to storage, bypassing potentially a >> >> >> > huge amount of pages colder than it in CXL. That doesn't seem right. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If demotion fails, IMO it shouldn't satisfy the reclaim request by >> >> >> > breaking the layering. Rather it should deflect that pressure to the >> >> >> > lower layers to make room. This makes sure we maintain an aging >> >> >> > pipeline that honors the memory tier hierarchy. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. I think that we should avoid to fall back to reclaim as much as >> >> >> possible too. Now, when we allocate memory for demotion >> >> >> (alloc_demote_page()), __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM is used. So, we will trigger >> >> >> kswapd reclaim on lower tier node to free some memory to avoid fall back >> >> >> to reclaim on current (higher tier) node. This may be not good enough, >> >> >> for example, the following patch from Hasan may help via waking up >> >> >> kswapd earlier. >> >> > >> >> > For the ideal case, I do agree with Johannes to demote the page tier >> >> > by tier rather than reclaiming them from the higher tiers. But I also >> >> > agree with your premature OOM concern. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/b45b9bf7cd3e21bca61d82dcd1eb692cd32c122c.1637778851.git.hasanalmaruf@fb.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you know what is the next step plan for this patch? >> >> >> >> >> >> Should we do even more? >> >> > >> >> > In my initial implementation I implemented a simple throttle logic >> >> > when the demotion is not going to succeed if the demotion target has >> >> > not enough free memory (just check the watermark) to make migration >> >> > succeed without doing any reclamation. Shall we resurrect that? >> >> >> >> Can you share the link to your throttle patch? Or paste it here? >> > >> > I just found this on the mailing list. >> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1560468577-101178-8-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com/ >> >> Per my understanding, this patch will avoid demoting if there's no free >> space on demotion target? If so, I think that we should trigger kswapd >> reclaiming on demotion target before that. And we can simply avoid to >> fall back to reclaim firstly, then avoid to scan as an improvement as >> that in your patch above. > > Yes, it should. The rough idea looks like: > > if (the demote target is contended) > wake up kswapd > reclaim_throttle(VMSCAN_THROTTLE_DEMOTION) > retry demotion > > The kswapd is responsible for clearing the contention flag. We may do this, at least for demotion in kswapd. But I think that this could be the second step optimization after we make correct choice between demotion/reclaim. What if the pages in demotion target is too hot to be reclaimed first? Should we reclaim in fast memory node to avoid OOM? Best Regards, Huang, Ying >> >> > But it didn't have the throttling logic, I may not submit that version >> > to the mailing list since we decided to drop this and merge mine and >> > Dave's. >> > >> > Anyway it is not hard to add the throttling logic, we already have a >> > few throttling cases in vmscan, for example, "mm/vmscan: throttle >> > reclaim until some writeback completes if congested". >> >> >> >> > Waking kswapd sooner is fine to me, but it may be not enough, for >> >> > example, the kswapd may not keep up so remature OOM may happen on >> >> > higher tiers or reclaim may still happen. I think throttling the >> >> > reclaimer/demoter until kswapd makes progress could avoid both. And >> >> > since the lower tiers memory typically is quite larger than the higher >> >> > tiers, so the throttle should happen very rarely IMHO. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> From another point of view, I still think that we can use falling back >> >> >> to reclaim as the last resort to avoid OOM in some special situations, >> >> >> for example, most pages in the lowest tier node are mlock() or too hot >> >> >> to be reclaimed. >> >> >> >> >> >> > So I'm hesitant to design cgroup controls around the current behavior. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Huang, Ying