Re: [PATCH 5/5] vmscan: Take order into consideration when deciding if kswapd is in trouble

Minchan Kim
2009-11-13T14:38:39Z

Hi, Koskai.

I missed this patch.
I noticed this after Mel reply your patch.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> If reclaim fails to make sufficient progress, the priority is raised.
>> Once the priority is higher, kswapd starts waiting on congestion.
>> However, on systems with large numbers of high-order atomics due to
>> crappy network cards, it's important that kswapd keep working in
>> parallel to save their sorry ass.
>>
>> This patch takes into account the order kswapd is reclaiming at before
>> waiting on congestion. The higher the order, the longer it is before
>> kswapd considers itself to be in trouble. The impact is that kswapd
>> works harder in parallel rather than depending on direct reclaimers or
>> atomic allocations to fail.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
>> ---
>>  mm/vmscan.c |   14 ++++++++++++--
>>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index ffa1766..5e200f1 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static int sleeping_prematurely(int order, long remaining)
>>  static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
>>  {
>>       int all_zones_ok;
>> -     int priority;
>> +     int priority, congestion_priority;
>>       int i;
>>       unsigned long total_scanned;
>>       struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
>> @@ -1967,6 +1967,16 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
>>        */
>>       int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
>>
>> +     /*
>> +      * When priority reaches congestion_priority, kswapd will sleep
>> +      * for a short time while congestion clears. The higher the
>> +      * order being reclaimed, the less likely kswapd will go to
>> +      * sleep as high-order allocations are harder to reclaim and
>> +      * stall direct reclaimers longer
>> +      */
>> +     congestion_priority = DEF_PRIORITY - 2;
>> +     congestion_priority -= min(congestion_priority, sc.order);
>
> This calculation mean
>
>        sc.order        congestion_priority     scan-pages
>        ---------------------------------------------------------
>        0               10                      1/1024 * zone-mem
>        1               9                       1/512  * zone-mem
>        2               8                       1/256  * zone-mem
>        3               7                       1/128  * zone-mem
>        4               6                       1/64   * zone-mem
>        5               5                       1/32   * zone-mem
>        6               4                       1/16   * zone-mem
>        7               3                       1/8    * zone-mem
>        8               2                       1/4    * zone-mem
>        9               1                       1/2    * zone-mem
>        10              0                       1      * zone-mem
>        11+             0                       1      * zone-mem
>
> I feel this is too agressive. The intention of this congestion_wait()
> is to prevent kswapd use 100% cpu time. but the above promotion seems
> break it.

I can't understand your point.
Mel didn't change the number of scan pages.
It denpends on priority.
He just added another one to prevent frequent contestion_wait.
Still, shrink_zone is called with priority, not congestion_priority.

> example,
> ia64 have 256MB hugepage (i.e. order=14). it mean kswapd never sleep.

Indeed. Good catch.

> example2,
> order-3 (i.e. PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) makes one of most inefficent
> reclaim, because it doesn't use lumpy recliam.
> I've seen 128GB size zone, it mean 1/128 = 1GB. oh well, kswapd definitely
> waste cpu time 100%.

Above I said, It depends on priority, not congestion_priority.

>
>> +
>>  loop_again:
>>       total_scanned = 0;
>>       sc.nr_reclaimed = 0;
>> @@ -2092,7 +2102,7 @@ loop_again:
>>                * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble.  Take a nap, then take
>>                * another pass across the zones.
>>                */
>> -             if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
>> +             if (total_scanned && priority < congestion_priority)
>>                       congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
>
> Instead, How about this?
>
>
>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |   13 ++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 64e4388..937e90d 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1938,6 +1938,7 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
>         * free_pages == high_wmark_pages(zone).
>         */
>        int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
> +       int has_under_min_watermark_zone = 0;

Let's make the shorter.
How about "under_min_watermark"?

>
>  loop_again:
>        total_scanned = 0;
> @@ -2057,6 +2058,15 @@ loop_again:
>                        if (total_scanned > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 2 &&
>                            total_scanned > sc.nr_reclaimed + sc.nr_reclaimed / 2)
>                                sc.may_writepage = 1;
> +
> +                       /*
> +                        * We are still under min water mark. it mean we have
> +                        * GFP_ATOMIC allocation failure risk. Hurry up!
> +                        */
> +                       if (!zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, min_wmark_pages(zone),
> +                                             end_zone, 0))
> +                               has_under_min_watermark_zone = 1;
> +
>                }
>                if (all_zones_ok)
>                        break;          /* kswapd: all done */
> @@ -2064,7 +2074,8 @@ loop_again:
>                 * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble.  Take a nap, then take
>                 * another pass across the zones.
>                 */
> -               if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> +               if (total_scanned && (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) &&
> +                   !has_under_min_watermark_zone)
>                        congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
>
>                /*
> --
> 1.6.2.5

Anyway, Looks good to me.
It's more straightforward than Mel's one, I think.

Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>

--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim