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 09BB1C4332F for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 01:58:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 33BBA6B0071; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 20:58:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2C44B6B0073; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 20:58:30 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 165506B0074; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 20:58:30 -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 030D66B0071 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 20:58:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22FE120F1A for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 01:58:29 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80195706738.19.BDF79DF Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564071A000B for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 01:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=Sutr1OuP; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of ying.huang@intel.com designates 192.55.52.93 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=1669946309; 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=aaysC/kkR8JDtnvxPuERfYsSAb65Laoc2U8GUkMGnwc=; b=V22hBh6M36BwHNaFPSLt9eqE352wPxbJQWnbhydxmaD9T2/adqf6ag8qZOqCNlf6QUA8oN bAQqFE/pekW87wQK5tOrN0jPTGKIYjMCVq2DaoDsPyfm4paVpB5oY6tXQdGiDbWpvJamCs EXkBotnQxzybEOVZnHh5wlz4PLgYRq0= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1669946309; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=SqAlYGVDIdHCHRNSzpez28l175HuRyamm9Okw+GW9Igh3i29MmBJvWvA5zzc37i55m5ZEs +H79tm9g3ybtzof1Oky4dlwiMikCJt2bxI1qqYeFr5QIUCgcLX417T1NUyfKQHIynlGdb7 fFowgPlstLJEqSLRDxqEjDqMVlkRg30= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=Sutr1OuP; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of ying.huang@intel.com designates 192.55.52.93 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ying.huang@intel.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1669946308; x=1701482308; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to: message-id:mime-version; bh=fysh+aff57z8wg2qjnJH7xE46wjuAEx2ebPXMdqJugw=; b=Sutr1OuPWSRKfiJu9oZ4eimy/58aMkWaWg3mkQyZfp5VhSZ85bbh/Eib f5VnHeqh7yveLfxPEY6WD9Haqq/pWLDcNRtabXD26TNa9YeABCmY7C67b g1VUUEg9dqvDlqmV+q1zChnEC471Zp6q+ajcmUh7+6NYfhhjGwUHdIzYX uWJFHtjelsWOkYsRedtAhkSN7oC5Q4Glly0pOpjukG/cN24yxfr754Np7 unzx1ILPs6cVdsRD9BCevm9av4IBN38Z748qkMJS0aNoW1julpoY8hnkR 93iKKm1sHFB4yr9HOCmLXhRJEb4XvLjVCGYs0uzxORaQ0wuPWYAda+NrY g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10548"; a="313488049" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,210,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="313488049" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Dec 2022 17:58:26 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10548"; a="769449528" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,210,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="769449528" Received: from yhuang6-desk2.sh.intel.com (HELO yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com) ([10.238.208.55]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Dec 2022 17:58:22 -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 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> <87h6yfao37.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 09:57:23 +0800 In-Reply-To: (Yang Shi's message of "Thu, 1 Dec 2022 14:45:36 -0800") Message-ID: <87y1rq36v0.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 564071A000B X-Stat-Signature: ekeriafcp54ky1fnp1kybcwsweqz3oyy X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.90 / 9.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[intel.com,none]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:192.55.52.93/32]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[intel.com:s=Intel]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWELVE(0.00)[17]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[intel.com:+]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_SIGNED(0.00)[hostedemail.com:s=arc-20220608:i=1]; ARC_NA(0.00)[] X-HE-Tag: 1669946307-502179 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 Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 5:52 PM Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> 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? > > IMHO we can't avoid reclaiming from the fast nodes entirely if we > prioritize avoiding OOMs. Yes. I think so too. > But it should happen very very rarely with the throttling logic or > other methods. Yes. I think that this is possible. > BTW did you run any test to see how many times vmscan reclaims from > fast nodes instead of demotion with the current implementation for > some typical workloads? No. I haven't done that. 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