From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
kernel-team@lge.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: scan pages until it founds eligible pages
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:03:11 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170510070311.GA24772@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170510061312.GB26158@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:13:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-05-17 10:46:54, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:00:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > @@ -1486,6 +1486,12 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Do not count skipped pages because we do want to isolate
> > > + * some pages even when the LRU mostly contains ineligible
> > > + * pages
> > > + */
> >
> > How about adding comment about "why"?
> >
> > /*
> > * Do not count skipped pages because it makes the function to return with
> > * none isolated pages if the LRU mostly contains inelgible pages so that
> > * VM cannot reclaim any pages and trigger premature OOM.
> > */
>
> I am not sure this is necessarily any better. Mentioning a pre-mature
> OOM would require a much better explanation because a first immediate
> question would be "why don't we scan those pages at priority 0". Also
> decision about the OOM is at a different layer and it might change in
> future when this doesn't apply any more. But it is not like I would
> insist...
>
> > > + scan++;
> > > switch (__isolate_lru_page(page, mode)) {
> > > case 0:
> > > nr_pages = hpage_nr_pages(page);
> >
> > Confirmed.
>
> Hmm. I can clearly see how we could skip over too many pages and hit
> small reclaim priorities too quickly but I am still scratching my head
> about how we could hit the OOM killer as a result. The amount of pages
> on the active anonymous list suggests that we are not able to rotate
> pages quickly enough. I have to keep thinking about that.
I explained it but seems to be not enouggh. Let me try again.
The problem is that get_scan_count determines nr_to_scan with
eligible zones.
size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
size = size >> sc->priority;
Assumes sc->priority is 0 and LRU list is as follows.
N-N-N-N-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H
(Ie, small eligible pages are in the head of LRU but others are
almost ineligible pages)
In that case, size becomes 4 so VM want to scan 4 pages but 4 pages
from tail of the LRU are not eligible pages.
If get_scan_count counts skipped pages, it doesn't reclaim remained
pages after scanning 4 pages.
If it's more helpful to understand the problem, I will add it to
the description.
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
kernel-team@lge.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: scan pages until it founds eligible pages
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:03:11 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170510070311.GA24772@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170510061312.GB26158@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:13:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-05-17 10:46:54, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:00:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > @@ -1486,6 +1486,12 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Do not count skipped pages because we do want to isolate
> > > + * some pages even when the LRU mostly contains ineligible
> > > + * pages
> > > + */
> >
> > How about adding comment about "why"?
> >
> > /*
> > * Do not count skipped pages because it makes the function to return with
> > * none isolated pages if the LRU mostly contains inelgible pages so that
> > * VM cannot reclaim any pages and trigger premature OOM.
> > */
>
> I am not sure this is necessarily any better. Mentioning a pre-mature
> OOM would require a much better explanation because a first immediate
> question would be "why don't we scan those pages at priority 0". Also
> decision about the OOM is at a different layer and it might change in
> future when this doesn't apply any more. But it is not like I would
> insist...
>
> > > + scan++;
> > > switch (__isolate_lru_page(page, mode)) {
> > > case 0:
> > > nr_pages = hpage_nr_pages(page);
> >
> > Confirmed.
>
> Hmm. I can clearly see how we could skip over too many pages and hit
> small reclaim priorities too quickly but I am still scratching my head
> about how we could hit the OOM killer as a result. The amount of pages
> on the active anonymous list suggests that we are not able to rotate
> pages quickly enough. I have to keep thinking about that.
I explained it but seems to be not enouggh. Let me try again.
The problem is that get_scan_count determines nr_to_scan with
eligible zones.
size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
size = size >> sc->priority;
Assumes sc->priority is 0 and LRU list is as follows.
N-N-N-N-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H
(Ie, small eligible pages are in the head of LRU but others are
almost ineligible pages)
In that case, size becomes 4 so VM want to scan 4 pages but 4 pages
from tail of the LRU are not eligible pages.
If get_scan_count counts skipped pages, it doesn't reclaim remained
pages after scanning 4 pages.
If it's more helpful to understand the problem, I will add it to
the description.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-10 7:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1493700038-27091-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>
2017-05-02 5:14 ` [PATCH] vmscan: scan pages until it founds eligible pages Minchan Kim
2017-05-02 5:14 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02 7:54 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02 7:54 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02 14:51 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02 14:51 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02 15:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02 15:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 4:48 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-03 4:48 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-03 6:00 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 6:00 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-10 1:46 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-10 1:46 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-10 6:13 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-10 6:13 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-10 7:03 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2017-05-10 7:03 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-10 7:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-10 7:22 ` Michal Hocko
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=20170510070311.GA24772@bbox \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
/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.