On 02/23/24 at 07:55pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:57:25PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 02/23/24 at 12:06pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > On 02/23/24 at 10:34am, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:15:59PM +0000, Pedro Falcato wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:35 AM Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Folk! > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[...] > > > > > > > pagetable_alloc - gets increased as soon as a higher pressure is applied by > > > > > > > increasing number of workers. Running same number of jobs on a next run > > > > > > > does not increase it and stays on same level as on previous. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > > * pagetable_alloc - Allocate pagetables > > > > > > > * @gfp: GFP flags > > > > > > > * @order: desired pagetable order > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > * pagetable_alloc allocates memory for page tables as well as a page table > > > > > > > * descriptor to describe that memory. > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > * Return: The ptdesc describing the allocated page tables. > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > static inline struct ptdesc *pagetable_alloc(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > struct page *page = alloc_pages(gfp | __GFP_COMP, order); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return page_ptdesc(page); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please comment on it? Or do you have any thought? Is it expected? > > > > > > > Is a page-table ever shrink? > > > > > > > > > > > > It's my understanding that the vunmap_range helpers don't actively > > > > > > free page tables, they just clear PTEs. munmap does free them in > > > > > > mmap.c:free_pgtables, maybe something could be worked up for vmalloc > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > Right. I see that for a user space, pgtables are removed. There was a > > > > > work on it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would not be surprised if the memory increase you're seeing is more > > > > > > or less correlated to the maximum vmalloc footprint throughout the > > > > > > whole test. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the vmalloc footprint follows the memory usage. Some uses cases > > > > > map lot of memory. > > > > > > > > The 'nr_threads=256' testing may be too radical. I took the test on > > > > a bare metal machine as below, it's still running and hang there after > > > > 30 minutes. I did this after system boot. I am looking for other > > > > machines with more processors. > > > > > > > > [root@dell-r640-068 ~]# nproc > > > > 64 > > > > [root@dell-r640-068 ~]# free -h > > > > total used free shared buff/cache available > > > > Mem: 187Gi 18Gi 169Gi 12Mi 262Mi 168Gi > > > > Swap: 4.0Gi 0B 4.0Gi > > > > [root@dell-r640-068 ~]# > > > > > > > > [root@dell-r640-068 linux]# tools/testing/selftests/mm/test_vmalloc.sh run_test_mask=127 nr_threads=256 > > > > Run the test with following parameters: run_test_mask=127 nr_threads=256 > > > > > > > Agree, nr_threads=256 is a way radical :) Mine took 50 minutes to > > > complete. So wait more :) > > > > Right, mine could take the similar time to finish that. I got a machine > > with 288 cpus, see if I can get some clues. When I go through the code > > flow, suddenly realized it could be drain_vmap_area_work which is the > > bottle neck and cause the tremendous page table pages costing. > > > > On your system, there's 64 cpus. then > > > > nr_lazy_max = lazy_max_pages() = 7*32M = 224M; > > > > So with nr_threads=128 or 256, it's so easily getting to the nr_lazy_max > > and triggering drain_vmap_work(). When cpu resouce is very limited, the > > lazy vmap purging will be very slow. While the alloc/free in lib/tet_vmalloc.c > > are going far faster and more easily then vmap reclaiming. If old va is not > > reused, new va is allocated and keep extending, the new page table surely > > need be created to cover them. > > > > I will take testing on the system with 288 cpus, will update if testing > > is done. > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index 12caa794abd4..a90c5393d85f 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -1754,6 +1754,8 @@ size_to_va_pool(struct vmap_node *vn, unsigned long size) > return NULL; > } > > +static unsigned long lazy_max_pages(void); > + > static bool > node_pool_add_va(struct vmap_node *n, struct vmap_area *va) > { > @@ -1763,6 +1765,9 @@ node_pool_add_va(struct vmap_node *n, struct vmap_area *va) > if (!vp) > return false; > > + if (READ_ONCE(vp->len) > lazy_max_pages()) > + return false; > + > spin_lock(&n->pool_lock); > list_add(&va->list, &vp->head); > WRITE_ONCE(vp->len, vp->len + 1); > @@ -2170,9 +2175,9 @@ static bool __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, > INIT_WORK(&vn->purge_work, purge_vmap_node); > > if (cpumask_test_cpu(i, cpu_online_mask)) > - schedule_work_on(i, &vn->purge_work); > + queue_work_on(i, system_highpri_wq, &vn->purge_work); > else > - schedule_work(&vn->purge_work); > + queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &vn->purge_work); > > nr_purge_helpers--; > } else { > > > We need this. This settles it back to a normal PTE-usage. Tomorrow i > will check if cache-len should be limited. I tested on my 64 CPUs > system with radical 256 kworkers. It looks good. I finally finished the testing w/o and with your above improvement patch. Testing is done on a system with 128 cpus. The system with 288 cpus is not available because of some console connection. Attach the log here. In some testing after rebooting, I found it could take more than 30 minutes, I am not sure if it's caused by my messy code change. I finally cleaned up all of them and take a clean linux-next to test, then apply your above draft code.