All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:48:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090715194820.237a4d77.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090715223854.7548740a@bree.surriel.com>

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:38:53 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:

> When way too many processes go into direct reclaim, it is possible
> for all of the pages to be taken off the LRU.  One result of this
> is that the next process in the page reclaim code thinks there are
> no reclaimable pages left and triggers an out of memory kill.
> 
> One solution to this problem is to never let so many processes into
> the page reclaim path that the entire LRU is emptied.  Limiting the
> system to only having half of each inactive list isolated for
> reclaim should be safe.
> 

Since when?  Linux page reclaim has a bilion machine years testing and
now stuff like this turns up.  Did we break it or is this a
never-before-discovered workload?

> ---
> This patch goes on top of Kosaki's "Account the number of isolated pages"
> patch series.
> 
>  mm/vmscan.c |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: mmotm/mm/vmscan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm.orig/mm/vmscan.c	2009-07-08 21:37:01.000000000 -0400
> +++ mmotm/mm/vmscan.c	2009-07-08 21:39:02.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1035,6 +1035,27 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * Are there way too many processes in the direct reclaim path already?
> + */
> +static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file)
> +{
> +	unsigned long inactive, isolated;
> +
> +	if (current_is_kswapd())
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (file) {
> +		inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
> +		isolated = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE);
> +	} else {
> +		inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
> +		isolated = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON);
> +	}
> +
> +	return isolated > inactive;
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * shrink_inactive_list() is a helper for shrink_zone().  It returns the number
>   * of reclaimed pages
>   */
> @@ -1049,6 +1070,10 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
>  	struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
>  	int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
>  
> +	while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file))) {
> +		schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ/10);
> +	}

This (incorrectly-laid-out) code is a no-op if signal_pending().

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:48:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090715194820.237a4d77.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090715223854.7548740a@bree.surriel.com>

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:38:53 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:

> When way too many processes go into direct reclaim, it is possible
> for all of the pages to be taken off the LRU.  One result of this
> is that the next process in the page reclaim code thinks there are
> no reclaimable pages left and triggers an out of memory kill.
> 
> One solution to this problem is to never let so many processes into
> the page reclaim path that the entire LRU is emptied.  Limiting the
> system to only having half of each inactive list isolated for
> reclaim should be safe.
> 

Since when?  Linux page reclaim has a bilion machine years testing and
now stuff like this turns up.  Did we break it or is this a
never-before-discovered workload?

> ---
> This patch goes on top of Kosaki's "Account the number of isolated pages"
> patch series.
> 
>  mm/vmscan.c |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: mmotm/mm/vmscan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm.orig/mm/vmscan.c	2009-07-08 21:37:01.000000000 -0400
> +++ mmotm/mm/vmscan.c	2009-07-08 21:39:02.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1035,6 +1035,27 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * Are there way too many processes in the direct reclaim path already?
> + */
> +static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file)
> +{
> +	unsigned long inactive, isolated;
> +
> +	if (current_is_kswapd())
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (file) {
> +		inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
> +		isolated = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE);
> +	} else {
> +		inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
> +		isolated = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON);
> +	}
> +
> +	return isolated > inactive;
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * shrink_inactive_list() is a helper for shrink_zone().  It returns the number
>   * of reclaimed pages
>   */
> @@ -1049,6 +1070,10 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
>  	struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
>  	int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
>  
> +	while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file))) {
> +		schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ/10);
> +	}

This (incorrectly-laid-out) code is a no-op if signal_pending().

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-07-16  2:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-16  2:38 [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  2:38 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  2:48 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-07-16  2:48   ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  3:10   ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:10     ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:21     ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  3:21       ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  3:28       ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:28         ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:38         ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  3:38           ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  3:42           ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:42             ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:51             ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  3:51               ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  3:53           ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3) Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:53             ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  4:02             ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  4:02               ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  4:09               ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  4:09                 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  4:26                 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16  4:26                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-29 15:04             ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 15:04               ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 16:19               ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-29 16:19                 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:36   ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v2) Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:36     ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:19 ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16  3:19   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16  3:32   ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:32     ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:42     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16  3:42       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16  3:47       ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16  3:47         ` Rik van Riel

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=20090715194820.237a4d77.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.