From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"lee.schermerhorn@hp.com" <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"riel@redhat.com" <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 20/22] vmscan: avoid multiplication overflow in shrink_zone()
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:49:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090430194907.82b31565.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090501012212.GA5848@localhost>
On Fri, 1 May 2009 09:22:12 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:08:55AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Local variable `scan' can overflow on zones which are larger than
> >
> > (2G * 4k) / 100 = 80GB.
> >
> > Making it 64-bit on 64-bit will fix that up.
>
> A side note about the "one HUGE scan inside shrink_zone":
>
> Isn't this low level scan granularity way tooooo large?
>
> It makes things a lot worse on memory pressure:
> - the over reclaim, somehow workarounded by Rik's early bail out patch
> - the throttle_vm_writeout()/congestion_wait() guards could work in a
> very sparse manner and hence is useless: imagine to stop and wait
> after shooting away every 1GB memory.
>
> The long term fix could be to move the granularity control up to the
> shrink_zones() level: there it can bail out early without hurting the
> balanced zone aging.
>
I guess it could be bad in some circumstances. Normally we'll bail out
way early because (nr_reclaimed > swap_cluster_max) comes true. If it
_doesn't_ come true, we have little choice but to keep scanning.
The code is mystifying:
: for_each_evictable_lru(l) {
: int file = is_file_lru(l);
: unsigned long scan;
:
: scan = zone_nr_pages(zone, sc, l);
: if (priority) {
: scan >>= priority;
: scan = (scan * percent[file]) / 100;
: }
: if (scanning_global_lru(sc)) {
: zone->lru[l].nr_scan += scan;
Here we increase zone->lru[l].nr_scan by (say) 1000000.
: nr[l] = zone->lru[l].nr_scan;
locally save away the number of pages to scan
: if (nr[l] >= swap_cluster_max)
: zone->lru[l].nr_scan = 0;
err, wot? This makes no sense at all afacit.
: else
: nr[l] = 0;
ok, this is doing some batching I think.
: } else
: nr[l] = scan;
so we didn't update the zone's nr_scan at all here. But we display
nr_scan in /proc/zoneinfo as "scanned". So we're filing to inform
userspace about scanning on this zone which is due to memcgroup
constraints. I think.
: }
:
: while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
: nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]) {
: for_each_evictable_lru(l) {
: if (nr[l]) {
: nr_to_scan = min(nr[l], swap_cluster_max);
: nr[l] -= nr_to_scan;
:
: nr_reclaimed += shrink_list(l, nr_to_scan,
: zone, sc, priority);
: }
: }
: /*
: * On large memory systems, scan >> priority can become
: * really large. This is fine for the starting priority;
: * we want to put equal scanning pressure on each zone.
: * However, if the VM has a harder time of freeing pages,
: * with multiple processes reclaiming pages, the total
: * freeing target can get unreasonably large.
: */
: if (nr_reclaimed > swap_cluster_max &&
: priority < DEF_PRIORITY && !current_is_kswapd())
: break;
here we bale out after scanning 32 pages, without updating ->nr_scan.
: }
What on earth does zone->lru[l].nr_scan mean after wending through all
this stuff?
afacit this will muck up /proc/zoneinfo, but nothing else.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-01 2:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200904302208.n3UM8t9R016687@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
2009-05-01 1:22 ` [patch 20/22] vmscan: avoid multiplication overflow in shrink_zone() Wu Fengguang
2009-05-01 2:49 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-05-01 6:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-02 2:31 ` [PATCH] vmscan: cleanup the scan batching code Wu Fengguang
2009-05-02 2:47 ` [RFC][PATCH] vmscan: don't export nr_saved_scan in /proc/zoneinfo Wu Fengguang
2009-05-02 14:21 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-04 13:50 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-04 14:40 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-04 21:49 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-05 7:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-05 15:43 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-02 14:14 ` [PATCH] vmscan: cleanup the scan batching code Rik van Riel
2009-05-04 8:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-04 14:41 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
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=20090430194907.82b31565.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).