Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Wu Fengguang]

Andreas,

On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 06:53:20PM +0800, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:13:49AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Having an attempt at writing a 300M /dev/zero file to the SSD's filesystem
> > was even worse (again tons of unresponsiveness), combined with multiple
> > OOM conditions flying by (I/O to the main HDD was minimal, its LED was
> > almost always _off_, yet everything stuck to an absolute standstill).
> >
> > Clearly there's a very, very important limiter somewhere in bio layer
> > missing or broken, a 300M dd /dev/zero should never manage to put
> > such an onerous penalty on a system, IMHO.
> 
> Seems this issue is a variation of the usual "ext3 sync" problem,
> but in overly critical and unexpected ways (full lockup of almost everything,
> and multiple OOMs).
> 
> I retried writing the 300M file with a freshly booted system, and there
> were _no_ suspicious issues to be observed (free memory went all down to
> 5M, not too problematic), well, that is, until I launched Firefox
> (the famous sync-happy beast).
> After Firefox startup, I had these long freezes again when trying to
> do transfers with the _UNRELATED_ main HDD of the system
> (plus some OOMs, again)
> 
> Setup: USB SSD ext4 non-journal, system HDD ext3, SSD unused except for
> this one ext4 partition (no swap partition activated there).
> 
> Of course I can understand and tolerate the existing "ext3 sync" issue,
> but what's special about this case is that large numbers of bio to
> a _separate_ _non_-ext3 device seem to put so much memory and I/O pressure
> on a system that the existing _lightly_ loaded ext3 device gets completely
> stuck for much longer than I'd usually naively expect an ext3 sync to an isolated
> device to take - not to mention the OOMs (which are probably causing
> swap partition handling on the main HDD to contribute to the contention).
> 
> IOW, we seem to still have too much ugly lock contention interaction
> between expectedly isolated parts of the system.
> 
> OTOH the main problem likely still is overly large pressure induced by a
> thoroughly unthrottled dd 300M, resulting in sync-challenged ext3 and swap
> activity (this time on the same device!) to break completely, and also OOMs to occur.
> 
> Probably overly global ext3 sync handling manages to grab a couple
> more global system locks (bdi, swapping, page handling, ...)
> before being contended, causing other, non-ext3-challenged
> parts of the system (e.g. the swap partition on the _same_ device)
> to not make any progress in the meantime.
> 
> per-bdi writeback patches (see
> http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?12,32355,33238,page=2 ) might
> have handled a related issue.
> 
> 
> Following is a SysRq-W trace (plus OOM traces) at a problematic moment during 300M copy
> after firefox - and thus sync invocation - launch (there's a backtrace of an "ls" that
> got stuck for perhaps half a minute on the main, _unaffected_, ext3
> HDD - and almost all other traces here are ext3-bound as well).
> 
> 
> SysRq : HELP : loglevel(0-9) reBoot Crash show-all-locks(D) terminate-all-tasks(E) memory-full-oom-kill(F) kill-all-tasks(I) thaw-filesystems(J) saK show-memory-usage(M) nice-all-RT-tasks(N) powerOff show-registers(P) show-all-timers(Q) unRaw Sync show-task-states(T) Unmount show-blocked-tasks(W)
> ata1: clearing spurious IRQ
> ata1: clearing spurious IRQ
> Xorg invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, oom_adj=0

This is GFP_KERNEL.

> Pid: 2924, comm: Xorg Tainted: G        W  2.6.34-rc3 #8
> Call Trace:
>  [<c105d881>] T.382+0x44/0x110
>  [<c105d978>] T.381+0x2b/0xe1
>  [<c105db2e>] __out_of_memory+0x100/0x112
>  [<c105dbb4>] out_of_memory+0x74/0x9c
>  [<c105fd41>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3c5/0x493
>  [<c105fe1e>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x2c
>  [<c1086400>] __pollwait+0x4c/0xa4
>  [<c120130e>] unix_poll+0x1a/0x93
>  [<c11a6a77>] sock_poll+0x12/0x15
>  [<c1085d21>] do_select+0x336/0x53a
>  [<c10ec5c4>] ? cfq_set_request+0x1d8/0x2ec
>  [<c10863b4>] ? __pollwait+0x0/0xa4
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>  [<c10f46c9>] ? _copy_from_user+0x42/0x127
>  [<c10860cc>] core_sys_select+0x1a7/0x291
>  [<c1214063>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1d/0x21
>  [<c1026b7f>] ? do_setitimer+0x160/0x18c
>  [<c103b066>] ? ktime_get_ts+0xba/0xc4
>  [<c108635e>] sys_select+0x68/0x84
>  [<c1002690>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
> Mem-Info:
> DMA per-cpu:
> CPU    0: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
> Normal per-cpu:
> CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  46
> active_anon:34886 inactive_anon:41460 isolated_anon:1
>  active_file:13576 inactive_file:27884 isolated_file:65
>  unevictable:0 dirty:4788 writeback:5675 unstable:0
>  free:1198 slab_reclaimable:1952 slab_unreclaimable:2594
>  mapped:10152 shmem:56 pagetables:742 bounce:0
> DMA free:2052kB min:84kB low:104kB high:124kB active_anon:940kB inactive_anon:3876kB active_file:212kB inactive_file:8224kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15804kB mlocked:0kB dirty:3448kB writeback:752kB mapped:80kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:160kB slab_unreclaimable:124kB kernel_stack:40kB pagetables:48kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:20096 all_unreclaimable? yes
> lowmem_reserve[]: 0 492 492
> Normal free:2740kB min:2792kB low:3488kB high:4188kB active_anon:138604kB inactive_anon:161964kB active_file:54092kB inactive_file:103312kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):4kB isolated(file):260kB present:503848kB mlocked:0kB dirty:15704kB writeback:21948kB mapped:40528kB shmem:224kB slab_reclaimable:7648kB slab_unreclaimable:10252kB kernel_stack:1632kB pagetables:2920kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:73056 all_unreclaimable? no
> lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
> DMA: 513*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2052kB
> Normal: 685*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2740kB
> 56122 total pagecache pages
> 14542 pages in swap cache
> Swap cache stats: add 36404, delete 21862, find 8669/10118
> Free swap  = 671696kB
> Total swap = 755048kB
> 131034 pages RAM
> 3214 pages reserved
> 94233 pages shared
> 80751 pages non-shared
> Out of memory: kill process 3462 (kdeinit4) score 95144 or a child

shmem=56 is ignorable, and 
active_file+inactive_file=13576+27884=41460 < 56122 total pagecache pages.

Where are the 14606 file pages gone?

> Killed process 3524 (kio_http) vsz:43448kB, anon-rss:1668kB, file-rss:6388kB
> SysRq : Show Blocked State
>   task                PC stack   pid father
> tclsh         D df888d98     0  2038      1 0x00000000
>  de781ee8 00000046 00000000 df888d98 4e3b903d 000002df df888b20 df888b20
>  dfbf6dc0 c1bff180 de781ef4 c1212374 de781f24 de781efc c105b8f3 de781f18
>  c121277b c105b8be de781f2c 00000060 dfbf6dc0 c137f88c de781f48 c105b8aa
> Call Trace:
>  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
>  [<c105b8f3>] sync_page+0x35/0x39
>  [<c121277b>] __wait_on_bit_lock+0x34/0x6f
>  [<c105b8be>] ? sync_page+0x0/0x39
>  [<c105b8aa>] __lock_page+0x6b/0x73
>  [<c1033d28>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x37
>  [<c106aede>] handle_mm_fault+0x2fc/0x4f6
>  [<c1018239>] ? do_page_fault+0xe4/0x279
>  [<c10183b8>] do_page_fault+0x263/0x279
>  [<c1018155>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x279
>  [<c121456e>] error_code+0x5e/0x64
>  [<c1018155>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x279
> console-kit-d D df970368     0  2760      1 0x00000000
>  d9aa7c0c 00000046 00000000 df970368 bcc125ae 000002de df9700f0 df9700f0
>  00000000 d9aa7c50 d9aa7c18 c1212374 d9aa7c48 d9aa7c20 c105b8f3 d9aa7c3c
>  c121288c c105b8be c1bfe5f8 0000000e d9aa7c48 d9aa7c64 d9aa7c70 c105baf7
> Call Trace:
>  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
>  [<c105b8f3>] sync_page+0x35/0x39
>  [<c121288c>] __wait_on_bit+0x34/0x5b
>  [<c105b8be>] ? sync_page+0x0/0x39
>  [<c105baf7>] wait_on_page_bit+0x7a/0x83
>  [<c1033d28>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x37
>  [<c1063610>] shrink_page_list+0x115/0x3c3
>  [<c10511fb>] ? __delayacct_blkio_end+0x2f/0x35
>  [<c1068083>] ? congestion_wait+0x5d/0x67
>  [<c1063ba9>] shrink_inactive_list+0x2eb/0x476
>  [<c105117e>] ? delayacct_end+0x66/0x8d
>  [<c1063f69>] shrink_zone+0x235/0x2d6
>  [<c1033cf9>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2f
>  [<c10647e8>] do_try_to_free_pages+0x12c/0x229
>  [<c10649ed>] try_to_free_pages+0x6a/0x72
>  [<c1062889>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x1a2
>  [<c105fc64>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2e8/0x493
>  [<c105fe1e>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x2c
>  [<c1021fb6>] copy_process+0x9e/0xcc5
>  [<c1022cf1>] do_fork+0x114/0x25e
>  [<c106b07b>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x499/0x4f6
>  [<c1018239>] ? do_page_fault+0xe4/0x279
>  [<c10372bc>] ? up_read+0x16/0x2a
>  [<c1007752>] sys_clone+0x1b/0x20
>  [<c1002765>] ptregs_clone+0x15/0x30
>  [<c12141b5>] ? syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> usb-storage   D df04cd18     0  3039      2 0x00000000
>  d734fdcc 00000046 00000000 df04cd18 4cf496d1 000002df df04caa0 7fffffff
>  7fffffff df04caa0 d734fe20 c12125e3 00000001 d734fe04 00000046 00000000
>  00000001 00000001 00000000 c1212440 00000000 de794dec 00000046 00000001
> Call Trace:
>  [<c12125e3>] schedule_timeout+0x17/0x139
>  [<c1212440>] ? wait_for_common+0x31/0x110
>  [<c12124c6>] wait_for_common+0xb7/0x110
>  [<c101f127>] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0xd
>  [<c1212591>] wait_for_completion+0x12/0x14
>  [<e0ba1b2e>] usb_sg_wait+0x123/0x132 [usbcore]
>  [<e0862f72>] usb_stor_bulk_transfer_sglist+0x5f/0x9a [usb_storage]
>  [<e0862fc9>] usb_stor_bulk_srb+0x1c/0x2c [usb_storage]
>  [<e0863149>] usb_stor_Bulk_transport+0x102/0x24a [usb_storage]
>  [<e0864219>] ? usb_stor_control_thread+0x0/0x196 [usb_storage]
>  [<e0862bf0>] usb_stor_invoke_transport+0x17/0x292 [usb_storage]
>  [<e0864269>] ? usb_stor_control_thread+0x50/0x196 [usb_storage]
>  [<e0864219>] ? usb_stor_control_thread+0x0/0x196 [usb_storage]
>  [<e08627de>] usb_stor_transparent_scsi_command+0x8/0xa [usb_storage]
>  [<e086432f>] usb_stor_control_thread+0x116/0x196 [usb_storage]
>  [<c12122f9>] ? schedule+0x3b9/0x3ed
>  [<e0864219>] ? usb_stor_control_thread+0x0/0x196 [usb_storage]
>  [<c1033a71>] kthread+0x5e/0x63
>  [<c1033a13>] ? kthread+0x0/0x63
>  [<c1002bb6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
> x-terminal-em D d722a368     0  3049      1 0x00000000
>  d99a3a28 00000046 00000000 d722a368 995859cf 000002dc d722a0f0 d722a0f0
>  00000000 d99a3a6c d99a3a34 c1212374 d99a3a64 d99a3a3c c105b8f3 d99a3a58
>  c121288c c105b8be c1c01a6c 00000183 d99a3a64 d99a3a80 d99a3a8c c105baf7
> Call Trace:
>  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
>  [<c105b8f3>] sync_page+0x35/0x39
>  [<c121288c>] __wait_on_bit+0x34/0x5b
>  [<c105b8be>] ? sync_page+0x0/0x39
>  [<c105baf7>] wait_on_page_bit+0x7a/0x83
>  [<c1033d28>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x37
>  [<c1063610>] shrink_page_list+0x115/0x3c3
>  [<c10511fb>] ? __delayacct_blkio_end+0x2f/0x35
>  [<c1068083>] ? congestion_wait+0x5d/0x67
>  [<c1063ba9>] shrink_inactive_list+0x2eb/0x476
>  [<c10608ab>] ? determine_dirtyable_memory+0xf/0x16
>  [<c1063f69>] shrink_zone+0x235/0x2d6
>  [<c10647e8>] do_try_to_free_pages+0x12c/0x229
>  [<c10649ed>] try_to_free_pages+0x6a/0x72
>  [<c1062889>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x1a2
>  [<c105fc64>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2e8/0x493
>  [<c1077acd>] cache_alloc_refill+0x235/0x3e1
>  [<c1077d00>] __kmalloc+0x87/0xae
>  [<c11adcd5>] __alloc_skb+0x4c/0x110
>  [<c11a9f9f>] sock_alloc_send_pskb+0x99/0x24c
>  [<c11aa160>] sock_alloc_send_skb+0xe/0x10
>  [<c1202399>] unix_stream_sendmsg+0x147/0x2b0
>  [<c11a6c2b>] sock_aio_write+0xeb/0xf4
>  [<c1079c5a>] do_sync_readv_writev+0x83/0xb6
>  [<c10f46c9>] ? _copy_from_user+0x42/0x127
>  [<c1079b3d>] ? rw_copy_check_uvector+0x55/0xc2
>  [<c107a25c>] do_readv_writev+0x7e/0x146
>  [<c11a6b40>] ? sock_aio_write+0x0/0xf4
>  [<c107ad10>] ? fget_light+0x3a/0xbb
>  [<c107a35a>] vfs_writev+0x36/0x44
>  [<c107a436>] sys_writev+0x3b/0x8d
>  [<c1002690>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
>  [<c121007b>] ? sio_via_probe+0x56/0x33e
> konqueror     D d722ad78     0  3457   3074 0x00000000
>  d997fa28 00200046 00000000 d722ad78 1a466bec 000002de d722ab00 d722ab00
>  00000000 d997fa6c d997fa34 c1212374 d997fa64 d997fa3c c105b8f3 d997fa58
>  c121288c c105b8be c1c00890 00000104 d997fa64 d997fa80 d997fa8c c105baf7
> Call Trace:
>  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
>  [<c105b8f3>] sync_page+0x35/0x39
>  [<c121288c>] __wait_on_bit+0x34/0x5b
>  [<c105b8be>] ? sync_page+0x0/0x39
>  [<c105baf7>] wait_on_page_bit+0x7a/0x83
>  [<c1033d28>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x37
>  [<c1063610>] shrink_page_list+0x115/0x3c3
>  [<c1068083>] ? congestion_wait+0x5d/0x67
>  [<c1063ba9>] shrink_inactive_list+0x2eb/0x476
>  [<c10608ab>] ? determine_dirtyable_memory+0xf/0x16
>  [<c1063f69>] shrink_zone+0x235/0x2d6
>  [<c10647e8>] do_try_to_free_pages+0x12c/0x229
>  [<c10649ed>] try_to_free_pages+0x6a/0x72
>  [<c1062889>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x1a2
>  [<c105fc64>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2e8/0x493
>  [<c1077acd>] cache_alloc_refill+0x235/0x3e1
>  [<c1077d00>] __kmalloc+0x87/0xae
>  [<c11adcd5>] __alloc_skb+0x4c/0x110
>  [<c11a9f9f>] sock_alloc_send_pskb+0x99/0x24c
>  [<c11aa160>] sock_alloc_send_skb+0xe/0x10
>  [<c1202399>] unix_stream_sendmsg+0x147/0x2b0
>  [<c11a6c2b>] sock_aio_write+0xeb/0xf4
>  [<c101fd0a>] ? T.939+0xa3/0xab
>  [<c1079c5a>] do_sync_readv_writev+0x83/0xb6
>  [<c1005f21>] ? pit_next_event+0x10/0x37
>  [<c10f46c9>] ? _copy_from_user+0x42/0x127
>  [<c1079b3d>] ? rw_copy_check_uvector+0x55/0xc2
>  [<c107a25c>] do_readv_writev+0x7e/0x146
>  [<c11a6b40>] ? sock_aio_write+0x0/0xf4
>  [<c107ad10>] ? fget_light+0x3a/0xbb
>  [<c107a35a>] vfs_writev+0x36/0x44
>  [<c107a436>] sys_writev+0x3b/0x8d
>  [<c1002690>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
>  [<c1210000>] ? sio_ite_8872_probe+0x229/0x24e

> flush-8:16    D caaaccf8     0  4032      2 0x00000000
>  c5b73ba4 00000046 00000000 caaaccf8 4525f418 000002df caaaca80 caaaca80
>  c5b73bc8 c5b73bdc c5b73bb0 c1212374 de60c070 c5b73be8 c10e4d23 caaaca80
>  df368ac0 de60c098 00000001 00000001 caaaca80 c1033cf9 de60c0b4 de60c0b4
> Call Trace:
>  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
>  [<c10e4d23>] get_request_wait+0x8a/0x102
>  [<c1033cf9>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2f
>  [<c10e4fea>] __make_request+0x24f/0x33f
>  [<c10e3ca4>] generic_make_request+0x275/0x2cb
>  [<c105d04f>] ? mempool_alloc_slab+0xe/0x10
>  [<c105d169>] ? mempool_alloc+0x56/0xe3
>  [<c10e3d9b>] submit_bio+0xa1/0xa9
>  [<c1098431>] ? bio_alloc_bioset+0x37/0x94
>  [<c1095598>] ? end_buffer_async_write+0x0/0xdb
>  [<c109450e>] submit_bh+0xec/0x10c
>  [<c1095598>] ? end_buffer_async_write+0x0/0xdb
>  [<c1096886>] __block_write_full_page+0x1e5/0x2bc
>  [<e08d6d88>] ? noalloc_get_block_write+0x0/0x53 [ext4]
>  [<c1096a02>] block_write_full_page_endio+0xa5/0xaf
>  [<c1095598>] ? end_buffer_async_write+0x0/0xdb
>  [<e08d6d88>] ? noalloc_get_block_write+0x0/0x53 [ext4]
>  [<c1096a19>] block_write_full_page+0xd/0xf
>  [<c1095598>] ? end_buffer_async_write+0x0/0xdb
>  [<e08d5228>] ext4_writepage+0x324/0x35a [ext4]
>  [<e08d4eaf>] mpage_da_submit_io+0x91/0xd5 [ext4]
>  [<e08d6a39>] ext4_da_writepages+0x298/0x3d5 [ext4]
>  [<c10607ec>] do_writepages+0x17/0x24
>  [<c108fe3c>] writeback_single_inode+0xc6/0x273
>  [<c1090925>] writeback_inodes_wb+0x326/0x3ff
>  [<c1090ae3>] wb_writeback+0xe5/0x143
>  [<c1090bbc>] ? wb_clear_pending+0x6a/0x6f
>  [<c1090c26>] wb_do_writeback+0x65/0x152
>  [<c1090d3a>] bdi_writeback_task+0x27/0x83
>  [<c106892f>] ? bdi_start_fn+0x0/0xad
>  [<c1068986>] bdi_start_fn+0x57/0xad
>  [<c106892f>] ? bdi_start_fn+0x0/0xad
>  [<c1033a71>] kthread+0x5e/0x63
>  [<c1033a13>] ? kthread+0x0/0x63
>  [<c1002bb6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
> firefox-bin   D cc6443a8     0  4049   3734 0x00000000
>  de431e04 00000046 00000000 cc6443a8 51878f6d 000002df cc644130 cc644130
>  c1b95da0 c1c010b8 de431e10 c1212374 de431e48 de431e18 c105b8f3 de431e20
>  c105b8ff de431e3c c121277b c105b8f7 de431e50 0000013e c1b95da0 c137f88c
> Call Trace:
>  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
>  [<c105b8f3>] sync_page+0x35/0x39
>  [<c105b8ff>] sync_page_killable+0x8/0x29
>  [<c121277b>] __wait_on_bit_lock+0x34/0x6f
>  [<c105b8f7>] ? sync_page_killable+0x0/0x29
>  [<c105b838>] __lock_page_killable+0x6e/0x75
>  [<c1033d28>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x37
>  [<c105ce61>] generic_file_aio_read+0x358/0x503
>  [<c1079dda>] do_sync_read+0x89/0xc4
>  [<c12140aa>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1d/0x20
>  [<c10786b9>] ? fd_install+0x43/0x49
>  [<c107a868>] vfs_read+0x88/0x139
>  [<c1079d51>] ? do_sync_read+0x0/0xc4
>  [<c107a9b0>] sys_read+0x3b/0x60
>  [<c12141b5>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> ls            D ccc41788     0  4057   3261 0x00000000
>  de641e50 00000046 00000000 ccc41788 4ac9a691 000002df ccc41510 ccc41510
>  df58b230 c1bffe28 de641e5c c1212374 de641e8c de641e64 c105b8f3 de641e80
>  c121277b c105b8be de641e94 000000ba df58b230 c137f88c de641eb0 c105b8aa
> Call Trace:
>  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
>  [<c105b8f3>] sync_page+0x35/0x39
>  [<c121277b>] __wait_on_bit_lock+0x34/0x6f
>  [<c105b8be>] ? sync_page+0x0/0x39
>  [<c105b8aa>] __lock_page+0x6b/0x73
>  [<c1033d28>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x37
>  [<c105ba02>] find_lock_page+0x40/0x5c
>  [<c105bfea>] filemap_fault+0x1ad/0x311
>  [<c10697d5>] __do_fault+0x3b/0x333
>  [<c106adf9>] handle_mm_fault+0x217/0x4f6
>  [<c1018239>] ? do_page_fault+0xe4/0x279
>  [<c10183b8>] do_page_fault+0x263/0x279
>  [<c1018155>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x279
>  [<c121456e>] error_code+0x5e/0x64
>  [<c1018155>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x279
> Sched Debug Version: v0.09, 2.6.34-rc3 #8
> now at 3158210.914290 msecs
>   .jiffies                                 : 285818
>   .sysctl_sched_latency                    : 5.000000
>   .sysctl_sched_min_granularity            : 1.000000
>   .sysctl_sched_wakeup_granularity         : 1.000000
>   .sysctl_sched_child_runs_first           : 0.000000
>   .sysctl_sched_features                   : 7917179
>   .sysctl_sched_tunable_scaling            : 1 (logaritmic)
> 
> cpu#0, 698.433 MHz
>   .nr_running                    : 2
>   .load                          : 2048
>   .nr_switches                   : 2095347
>   .nr_load_updates               : 240414
>   .nr_uninterruptible            : 8
>   .next_balance                  : 0.000000
>   .curr->pid                     : 2825
>   .clock                         : 3158187.674744
>   .cpu_load[0]                   : 1024
>   .cpu_load[1]                   : 1029
>   .cpu_load[2]                   : 1048
>   .cpu_load[3]                   : 1073
>   .cpu_load[4]                   : 1024
>   .yld_count                     : 0
>   .sched_switch                  : 0
>   .sched_count                   : 2148427
>   .sched_goidle                  : 698042
>   .ttwu_count                    : 0
>   .ttwu_local                    : 0
>   .bkl_count                     : 0
> 
> cfs_rq[0]:
>   .exec_clock                    : 1031666.973419
>   .MIN_vruntime                  : 846287.573662
>   .min_vruntime                  : 846280.117314
>   .max_vruntime                  : 846287.573662
>   .spread                        : 0.000000
>   .spread0                       : 0.000000
>   .nr_running                    : 2
>   .load                          : 2048
>   .nr_spread_over                : 1768
> 
> rt_rq[0]:
>   .rt_nr_running                 : 0
>   .rt_throttled                  : 0
>   .rt_time                       : 0.000000
>   .rt_runtime                    : 950.000000
> 
> runnable tasks:
>             task   PID         tree-key  switches  prio     exec-runtime         sum-exec        sum-sleep
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> R           bash  2825    846277.617314       391   120    846277.617314      1362.246731   3073863.564008
>               dd  4031    846287.573662      2432   120    846287.573662      4709.200175    121646.537749

--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Wu Fengguang]

> > console-kit-d D df970368     0  2760      1 0x00000000
> >  d9aa7c0c 00000046 00000000 df970368 bcc125ae 000002de df9700f0 df9700f0
> >  00000000 d9aa7c50 d9aa7c18 c1212374 d9aa7c48 d9aa7c20 c105b8f3 d9aa7c3c
> >  c121288c c105b8be c1bfe5f8 0000000e d9aa7c48 d9aa7c64 d9aa7c70 c105baf7
> > Call Trace:
> >  [<c1212374>] io_schedule+0x47/0x7d
> >  [<c105b8f3>] sync_page+0x35/0x39
> >  [<c121288c>] __wait_on_bit+0x34/0x5b
> >  [<c105b8be>] ? sync_page+0x0/0x39
> >  [<c105baf7>] wait_on_page_bit+0x7a/0x83
> >  [<c1033d28>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x37
> >  [<c1063610>] shrink_page_list+0x115/0x3c3
> >  [<c10511fb>] ? __delayacct_blkio_end+0x2f/0x35
> >  [<c1068083>] ? congestion_wait+0x5d/0x67
> >  [<c1063ba9>] shrink_inactive_list+0x2eb/0x476
> >  [<c105117e>] ? delayacct_end+0x66/0x8d
> >  [<c1063f69>] shrink_zone+0x235/0x2d6
> >  [<c1033cf9>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2f
> >  [<c10647e8>] do_try_to_free_pages+0x12c/0x229
> >  [<c10649ed>] try_to_free_pages+0x6a/0x72
> >  [<c1062889>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x1a2
> >  [<c105fc64>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2e8/0x493
> >  [<c105fe1e>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x2c
> >  [<c1021fb6>] copy_process+0x9e/0xcc5
> >  [<c1022cf1>] do_fork+0x114/0x25e
> >  [<c106b07b>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x499/0x4f6
> >  [<c1018239>] ? do_page_fault+0xe4/0x279
> >  [<c10372bc>] ? up_read+0x16/0x2a
> >  [<c1007752>] sys_clone+0x1b/0x20
> >  [<c1002765>] ptregs_clone+0x15/0x30
> >  [<c12141b5>] ? syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> 
> Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.

I wonder if this hacking patch may help.

When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
regions..

Thanks,
Fengguang
---

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index e0e5f15..f7179cf 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1149,7 +1149,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 	 */
 	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
 		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
-	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
+	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY / 2)
 		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
 
 	pagevec_init(&pvec, 1);

--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
> 
> I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
> 
> When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
> region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
> go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
> regions..

Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure. IO get stcking also prevent
priority reach to 0.



> 
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index e0e5f15..f7179cf 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1149,7 +1149,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
>  	 */
>  	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
>  		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> -	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> +	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY / 2)
>  		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
>  
>  	pagevec_init(&pvec, 1);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Wu Fengguang]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:31:52AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> > > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> > > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> > > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> > > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
> > 
> > I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
> > 
> > When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
> > region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
> > go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
> > regions..
> 
> Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
> Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
> direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
> only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure.

No I'm not talking OOM. Nor lumpy reclaim.

I mean the direct reclaim can get stuck for long time, when we do
wait_on_page_writeback() on lumpy_reclaim=1.

> IO get stcking also prevent priority reach to 0.

Sure. But we can wait for IO a bit later -- after scanning 1/64 LRU
(the below patch) instead of the current 1/1024.

In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB, this is way too low comparing to
the 22MB writeback pages. There can easily be a continuous range of
512KB dirty/writeback pages in the LRU, which will trigger the wait
logic.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> > ---
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index e0e5f15..f7179cf 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1149,7 +1149,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
> >  	 */
> >  	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> >  		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> > -	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> > +	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY / 2)
> >  		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> >  
> >  	pagevec_init(&pvec, 1);
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> 

--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:31:52AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> > > > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> > > > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> > > > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> > > > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
> > > 
> > > I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
> > > 
> > > When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
> > > region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
> > > go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
> > > regions..
> > 
> > Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
> > Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
> > direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
> > only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure.
> 
> No I'm not talking OOM. Nor lumpy reclaim.
> 
> I mean the direct reclaim can get stuck for long time, when we do
> wait_on_page_writeback() on lumpy_reclaim=1.
> 
> > IO get stcking also prevent priority reach to 0.
> 
> Sure. But we can wait for IO a bit later -- after scanning 1/64 LRU
> (the below patch) instead of the current 1/1024.
> 
> In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB, this is way too low comparing to
> the 22MB writeback pages. There can easily be a continuous range of
> 512KB dirty/writeback pages in the LRU, which will trigger the wait
> logic.

In my feeling from your explanation, we need auto adjustment mechanism
instead change default value for special machine. no?



--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Wu Fengguang]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:32:50PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:31:52AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> > > > > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> > > > > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> > > > > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> > > > > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
> > > > 
> > > > I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
> > > > 
> > > > When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
> > > > region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
> > > > go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
> > > > regions..
> > > 
> > > Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
> > > Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
> > > direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
> > > only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure.
> > 
> > No I'm not talking OOM. Nor lumpy reclaim.
> > 
> > I mean the direct reclaim can get stuck for long time, when we do
> > wait_on_page_writeback() on lumpy_reclaim=1.
> > 
> > > IO get stcking also prevent priority reach to 0.
> > 
> > Sure. But we can wait for IO a bit later -- after scanning 1/64 LRU
> > (the below patch) instead of the current 1/1024.
> > 
> > In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB, this is way too low comparing to
> > the 22MB writeback pages. There can easily be a continuous range of
> > 512KB dirty/writeback pages in the LRU, which will trigger the wait
> > logic.
> 
> In my feeling from your explanation, we need auto adjustment mechanism
> instead change default value for special machine. no?

You mean the dumb DEF_PRIORITY/2 may be too large for a 1TB memory box?

However for such boxes, whether it be DEF_PRIORITY-2 or DEF_PRIORITY/2
shall be irrelevant: it's trivial anyway to reclaim an order-1 or
order-2 page. In other word, lumpy_reclaim will hardly go 1.  Do you
think so?

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:32:50PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:31:52AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> > > > > > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> > > > > > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> > > > > > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> > > > > > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
> > > > > region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
> > > > > go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
> > > > > regions..
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
> > > > Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
> > > > direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
> > > > only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure.
> > > 
> > > No I'm not talking OOM. Nor lumpy reclaim.
> > > 
> > > I mean the direct reclaim can get stuck for long time, when we do
> > > wait_on_page_writeback() on lumpy_reclaim=1.
> > > 
> > > > IO get stcking also prevent priority reach to 0.
> > > 
> > > Sure. But we can wait for IO a bit later -- after scanning 1/64 LRU
> > > (the below patch) instead of the current 1/1024.
> > > 
> > > In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB, this is way too low comparing to
> > > the 22MB writeback pages. There can easily be a continuous range of
> > > 512KB dirty/writeback pages in the LRU, which will trigger the wait
> > > logic.
> > 
> > In my feeling from your explanation, we need auto adjustment mechanism
> > instead change default value for special machine. no?
> 
> You mean the dumb DEF_PRIORITY/2 may be too large for a 1TB memory box?
> 
> However for such boxes, whether it be DEF_PRIORITY-2 or DEF_PRIORITY/2
> shall be irrelevant: it's trivial anyway to reclaim an order-1 or
> order-2 page. In other word, lumpy_reclaim will hardly go 1.  Do you
> think so?

If my remember is correct, Its order-1 lumpy reclaim was introduced
for solving such big box + AIM7 workload made kernel stack (order-1 page)
allocation failure.

Now, We are living on moore's law. so probably we need to pay attention
scalability always. today's big box is going to become desktop box after
3-5 years.

Probably, Lee know such problem than me. cc to him.



--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Wu Fengguang]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:55:30PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:32:50PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:31:52AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > > > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> > > > > > > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> > > > > > > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> > > > > > > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> > > > > > > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
> > > > > > region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
> > > > > > go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
> > > > > > regions..
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
> > > > > Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
> > > > > direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
> > > > > only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure.
> > > > 
> > > > No I'm not talking OOM. Nor lumpy reclaim.
> > > > 
> > > > I mean the direct reclaim can get stuck for long time, when we do
> > > > wait_on_page_writeback() on lumpy_reclaim=1.
> > > > 
> > > > > IO get stcking also prevent priority reach to 0.
> > > > 
> > > > Sure. But we can wait for IO a bit later -- after scanning 1/64 LRU
> > > > (the below patch) instead of the current 1/1024.
> > > > 
> > > > In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB, this is way too low comparing to
> > > > the 22MB writeback pages. There can easily be a continuous range of
> > > > 512KB dirty/writeback pages in the LRU, which will trigger the wait
> > > > logic.
> > > 
> > > In my feeling from your explanation, we need auto adjustment mechanism
> > > instead change default value for special machine. no?
> > 
> > You mean the dumb DEF_PRIORITY/2 may be too large for a 1TB memory box?
> > 
> > However for such boxes, whether it be DEF_PRIORITY-2 or DEF_PRIORITY/2
> > shall be irrelevant: it's trivial anyway to reclaim an order-1 or
> > order-2 page. In other word, lumpy_reclaim will hardly go 1.  Do you
> > think so?
> 
> If my remember is correct, Its order-1 lumpy reclaim was introduced
> for solving such big box + AIM7 workload made kernel stack (order-1 page)
> allocation failure.
> 
> Now, We are living on moore's law. so probably we need to pay attention
> scalability always. today's big box is going to become desktop box after
> 3-5 years.
> 
> Probably, Lee know such problem than me. cc to him.

In Andreas' trace, the processes are blocked in
- do_fork:              console-kit-d
- __alloc_skb:          x-terminal-em, konqueror
- handle_mm_fault:      tclsh
- filemap_fault:        ls

I'm a bit confused by the last one, and wonder what's the typical
gfp order of __alloc_skb().

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
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>

[PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:55:30PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:32:50PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:31:52AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > > > > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> > > > > > > > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> > > > > > > > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> > > > > > > > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> > > > > > > > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
> > > > > > > region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
> > > > > > > go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
> > > > > > > regions..
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
> > > > > > Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
> > > > > > direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
> > > > > > only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No I'm not talking OOM. Nor lumpy reclaim.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I mean the direct reclaim can get stuck for long time, when we do
> > > > > wait_on_page_writeback() on lumpy_reclaim=1.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > IO get stcking also prevent priority reach to 0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure. But we can wait for IO a bit later -- after scanning 1/64 LRU
> > > > > (the below patch) instead of the current 1/1024.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB, this is way too low comparing to
> > > > > the 22MB writeback pages. There can easily be a continuous range of
> > > > > 512KB dirty/writeback pages in the LRU, which will trigger the wait
> > > > > logic.
> > > > 
> > > > In my feeling from your explanation, we need auto adjustment mechanism
> > > > instead change default value for special machine. no?
> > > 
> > > You mean the dumb DEF_PRIORITY/2 may be too large for a 1TB memory box?
> > > 
> > > However for such boxes, whether it be DEF_PRIORITY-2 or DEF_PRIORITY/2
> > > shall be irrelevant: it's trivial anyway to reclaim an order-1 or
> > > order-2 page. In other word, lumpy_reclaim will hardly go 1.  Do you
> > > think so?
> > 
> > If my remember is correct, Its order-1 lumpy reclaim was introduced
> > for solving such big box + AIM7 workload made kernel stack (order-1 page)
> > allocation failure.
> > 
> > Now, We are living on moore's law. so probably we need to pay attention
> > scalability always. today's big box is going to become desktop box after
> > 3-5 years.
> > 
> > Probably, Lee know such problem than me. cc to him.
> 
> In Andreas' trace, the processes are blocked in
> - do_fork:              console-kit-d
> - __alloc_skb:          x-terminal-em, konqueror
> - handle_mm_fault:      tclsh
> - filemap_fault:        ls
> 
> I'm a bit confused by the last one, and wonder what's the typical
> gfp order of __alloc_skb().

Probably I've found one of reason of low order lumpy reclaim slow down.
Let's fix obvious bug at first!


============================================================
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly

If vmscan is under lumpy reclaim mode, it have to ignore referenced bit
for making contenious free pages. but current page_check_references()
doesn't.

Fixes it.

Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
 mm/vmscan.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 3ff3311..13d9546 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ struct scan_control {
 
 	int order;
 
+	int lumpy_reclaim;
+
 	/* Which cgroup do we reclaim from */
 	struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup;
 
@@ -575,7 +577,7 @@ static enum page_references page_check_references(struct page *page,
 	referenced_page = TestClearPageReferenced(page);
 
 	/* Lumpy reclaim - ignore references */
-	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+	if (sc->lumpy_reclaim)
 		return PAGEREF_RECLAIM;
 
 	/*
@@ -1130,7 +1132,6 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 	unsigned long nr_scanned = 0;
 	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
 	struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
-	int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
 
 	while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
 		congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
@@ -1140,17 +1141,6 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 			return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
-	 * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we
-	 * will reclaim both active and inactive pages.
-	 *
-	 * We use the same threshold as pageout congestion_wait below.
-	 */
-	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
-		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
-	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
-		lumpy_reclaim = 1;
 
 	pagevec_init(&pvec, 1);
 
@@ -1163,7 +1153,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 		unsigned long nr_freed;
 		unsigned long nr_active;
 		unsigned int count[NR_LRU_LISTS] = { 0, };
-		int mode = lumpy_reclaim ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE;
+		int mode = sc->lumpy_reclaim ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE;
 		unsigned long nr_anon;
 		unsigned long nr_file;
 
@@ -1216,7 +1206,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 		 * but that should be acceptable to the caller
 		 */
 		if (nr_freed < nr_taken && !current_is_kswapd() &&
-		    lumpy_reclaim) {
+		    sc->lumpy_reclaim) {
 			congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
 
 			/*
@@ -1655,6 +1645,18 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
 					  &reclaim_stat->nr_saved_scan[l]);
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
+	 * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we
+	 * will reclaim both active and inactive pages.
+	 */
+	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+		sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
+	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
+		sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
+	else
+		sc->lumpy_reclaim = 0;
+
 	while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
 					nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]) {
 		for_each_evictable_lru(l) {
-- 
1.6.5.2



--
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>

Re: [PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly

[Minchan Kim]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:55:30PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:32:50PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:31:52AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
>> > > > > > > > wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
>> > > > > > > > irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
>> > > > > > > > allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
>> > > > > > > > pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I wonder if this hacking patch may help.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > When creating 300MB dirty file with dd, it is creating continuous
>> > > > > > > region of hard-to-reclaim pages in the LRU list. priority can easily
>> > > > > > > go low when irrelevant applications' direct reclaim run into these
>> > > > > > > regions..
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sorry I'm confused not. can you please tell us more detail explanation?
>> > > > > > Why did lumpy reclaim cause OOM? lumpy reclaim might cause
>> > > > > > direct reclaim slow down. but IIUC it's not cause OOM because OOM is
>> > > > > > only occur when priority-0 reclaim failure.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No I'm not talking OOM. Nor lumpy reclaim.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I mean the direct reclaim can get stuck for long time, when we do
>> > > > > wait_on_page_writeback() on lumpy_reclaim=1.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > IO get stcking also prevent priority reach to 0.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sure. But we can wait for IO a bit later -- after scanning 1/64 LRU
>> > > > > (the below patch) instead of the current 1/1024.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In Andreas' case, 512MB/1024 = 512KB, this is way too low comparing to
>> > > > > the 22MB writeback pages. There can easily be a continuous range of
>> > > > > 512KB dirty/writeback pages in the LRU, which will trigger the wait
>> > > > > logic.
>> > > >
>> > > > In my feeling from your explanation, we need auto adjustment mechanism
>> > > > instead change default value for special machine. no?
>> > >
>> > > You mean the dumb DEF_PRIORITY/2 may be too large for a 1TB memory box?
>> > >
>> > > However for such boxes, whether it be DEF_PRIORITY-2 or DEF_PRIORITY/2
>> > > shall be irrelevant: it's trivial anyway to reclaim an order-1 or
>> > > order-2 page. In other word, lumpy_reclaim will hardly go 1.  Do you
>> > > think so?
>> >
>> > If my remember is correct, Its order-1 lumpy reclaim was introduced
>> > for solving such big box + AIM7 workload made kernel stack (order-1 page)
>> > allocation failure.
>> >
>> > Now, We are living on moore's law. so probably we need to pay attention
>> > scalability always. today's big box is going to become desktop box after
>> > 3-5 years.
>> >
>> > Probably, Lee know such problem than me. cc to him.
>>
>> In Andreas' trace, the processes are blocked in
>> - do_fork:              console-kit-d
>> - __alloc_skb:          x-terminal-em, konqueror
>> - handle_mm_fault:      tclsh
>> - filemap_fault:        ls
>>
>> I'm a bit confused by the last one, and wonder what's the typical
>> gfp order of __alloc_skb().
>
> Probably I've found one of reason of low order lumpy reclaim slow down.
> Let's fix obvious bug at first!
>
>
> ============================================================
> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly
>
> If vmscan is under lumpy reclaim mode, it have to ignore referenced bit
> for making contenious free pages. but current page_check_references()
> doesn't.
>
> Fixes it.
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>

I am not sure how the patch affects this problem.
But I think the patch is reasonable.

Nice catch, Kosaiki.
Below is just nitpick. :)

> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 3ff3311..13d9546 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ struct scan_control {
>
>        int order;
>
> +       int lumpy_reclaim;
> +
>        /* Which cgroup do we reclaim from */
>        struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup;
>
> @@ -575,7 +577,7 @@ static enum page_references page_check_references(struct page *page,
>        referenced_page = TestClearPageReferenced(page);
>
>        /* Lumpy reclaim - ignore references */
> -       if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> +       if (sc->lumpy_reclaim)
>                return PAGEREF_RECLAIM;
>
>        /*
> @@ -1130,7 +1132,6 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
>        unsigned long nr_scanned = 0;
>        unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
>        struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
> -       int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
>
>        while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
>                congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> @@ -1140,17 +1141,6 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
>                        return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
>        }
>
> -       /*
> -        * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
> -        * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we
> -        * will reclaim both active and inactive pages.
> -        *
> -        * We use the same threshold as pageout congestion_wait below.
> -        */
> -       if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> -               lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> -       else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> -               lumpy_reclaim = 1;
>
>        pagevec_init(&pvec, 1);
>
> @@ -1163,7 +1153,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
>                unsigned long nr_freed;
>                unsigned long nr_active;
>                unsigned int count[NR_LRU_LISTS] = { 0, };
> -               int mode = lumpy_reclaim ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE;
> +               int mode = sc->lumpy_reclaim ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE;
>                unsigned long nr_anon;
>                unsigned long nr_file;
>
> @@ -1216,7 +1206,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
>                 * but that should be acceptable to the caller
>                 */
>                if (nr_freed < nr_taken && !current_is_kswapd() &&
> -                   lumpy_reclaim) {
> +                   sc->lumpy_reclaim) {
>                        congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
>
>                        /*
> @@ -1655,6 +1645,18 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
>                                          &reclaim_stat->nr_saved_scan[l]);
>        }
>
> +       /*
> +        * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
> +        * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we
> +        * will reclaim both active and inactive pages.
> +        */
> +       if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> +               sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> +       else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> +               sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> +       else
> +               sc->lumpy_reclaim = 0;

How about making new function for readability instead of nesting else?
int is_lumpy_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
{
....
}

If you merge patch reduced stack usage of reclaim path, I think it's
enough alone scan_control argument.
It's just nitpick. :)
If you don't mind, ignore, please.


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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>

Re: [PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> > + A  A  A  /*
> > + A  A  A  A * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
> > + A  A  A  A * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we
> > + A  A  A  A * will reclaim both active and inactive pages.
> > + A  A  A  A */
> > + A  A  A  if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> > + A  A  A  A  A  A  A  sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> > + A  A  A  else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> > + A  A  A  A  A  A  A  sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
> > + A  A  A  else
> > + A  A  A  A  A  A  A  sc->lumpy_reclaim = 0;
> 
> How about making new function for readability instead of nesting else?
> int is_lumpy_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> ....
> }
> 
> If you merge patch reduced stack usage of reclaim path, I think it's
> enough alone scan_control argument.
> It's just nitpick. :)
> If you don't mind, ignore, please.

Good opinion. I don't hope introduce the dependency of "reduced stack usage"
series. but I agree that I'll push your proposal later and separately.



--
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>

Re: [PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:16:18 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> If vmscan is under lumpy reclaim mode, it have to ignore referenced bit
> for making contenious free pages. but current page_check_references()
> doesn't.
> 
> Fixes it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 3ff3311..13d9546 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ struct scan_control {
>  
>  	int order;
>  
> +	int lumpy_reclaim;
> +

Needs a comment explaining its role, please.  Something like "direct
this reclaim run to perform lumpy reclaim"?

A clearer name might be "lumpy_relcaim_mode"?

Making it a `bool' would clarify things too.

--
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>

Re: [PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> > @@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ struct scan_control {
> >  
> >  	int order;
> >  
> > +	int lumpy_reclaim;
> > +
> 
> Needs a comment explaining its role, please.  Something like "direct
> this reclaim run to perform lumpy reclaim"?
> 
> A clearer name might be "lumpy_relcaim_mode"?
> 
> Making it a `bool' would clarify things too.

Sorry, I've missed your this review comment.
How about this?


---
 mm/vmscan.c |   39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 13d9546..c3bcdd4 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -77,7 +77,11 @@ struct scan_control {
 
 	int order;
 
-	int lumpy_reclaim;
+	/*
+	 * Intend to reclaim enough contenious memory rather than to reclaim
+	 * enough amount memory. I.e, it's the mode for high order allocation.
+	 */
+	bool lumpy_reclaim_mode;
 
 	/* Which cgroup do we reclaim from */
 	struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup;
@@ -577,7 +581,7 @@ static enum page_references page_check_references(struct page *page,
 	referenced_page = TestClearPageReferenced(page);
 
 	/* Lumpy reclaim - ignore references */
-	if (sc->lumpy_reclaim)
+	if (sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode)
 		return PAGEREF_RECLAIM;
 
 	/*
@@ -1153,7 +1157,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 		unsigned long nr_freed;
 		unsigned long nr_active;
 		unsigned int count[NR_LRU_LISTS] = { 0, };
-		int mode = sc->lumpy_reclaim ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE;
+		int mode = sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE;
 		unsigned long nr_anon;
 		unsigned long nr_file;
 
@@ -1206,7 +1210,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 		 * but that should be acceptable to the caller
 		 */
 		if (nr_freed < nr_taken && !current_is_kswapd() &&
-		    sc->lumpy_reclaim) {
+		    sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode) {
 			congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
 
 			/*
@@ -1609,6 +1613,21 @@ static unsigned long nr_scan_try_batch(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 	return nr;
 }
 
+static void set_lumpy_reclaim_mode(int priority, struct scan_control *sc)
+{
+	/*
+	 * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
+	 * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we
+	 * will reclaim both active and inactive pages.
+	 */
+	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 1;
+	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
+		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 1;
+	else
+		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = 0;
+}
+
 /*
  * This is a basic per-zone page freer.  Used by both kswapd and direct reclaim.
  */
@@ -1645,17 +1664,7 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
 					  &reclaim_stat->nr_saved_scan[l]);
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
-	 * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we
-	 * will reclaim both active and inactive pages.
-	 */
-	if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
-		sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
-	else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
-		sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1;
-	else
-		sc->lumpy_reclaim = 0;
+	set_lumpy_reclaim_mode(priority, sc);
 
 	while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
 					nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]) {
-- 
1.6.5.2





--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Minchan Kim]

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> Andreas,
>
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 06:53:20PM +0800, Andreas Mohr wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 12:13:49AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
>> > Having an attempt at writing a 300M /dev/zero file to the SSD's filesystem
>> > was even worse (again tons of unresponsiveness), combined with multiple
>> > OOM conditions flying by (I/O to the main HDD was minimal, its LED was
>> > almost always _off_, yet everything stuck to an absolute standstill).
>> >
>> > Clearly there's a very, very important limiter somewhere in bio layer
>> > missing or broken, a 300M dd /dev/zero should never manage to put
>> > such an onerous penalty on a system, IMHO.
>>
>> Seems this issue is a variation of the usual "ext3 sync" problem,
>> but in overly critical and unexpected ways (full lockup of almost everything,
>> and multiple OOMs).
>>
>> I retried writing the 300M file with a freshly booted system, and there
>> were _no_ suspicious issues to be observed (free memory went all down to
>> 5M, not too problematic), well, that is, until I launched Firefox
>> (the famous sync-happy beast).
>> After Firefox startup, I had these long freezes again when trying to
>> do transfers with the _UNRELATED_ main HDD of the system
>> (plus some OOMs, again)
>>
>> Setup: USB SSD ext4 non-journal, system HDD ext3, SSD unused except for
>> this one ext4 partition (no swap partition activated there).
>>
>> Of course I can understand and tolerate the existing "ext3 sync" issue,
>> but what's special about this case is that large numbers of bio to
>> a _separate_ _non_-ext3 device seem to put so much memory and I/O pressure
>> on a system that the existing _lightly_ loaded ext3 device gets completely
>> stuck for much longer than I'd usually naively expect an ext3 sync to an isolated
>> device to take - not to mention the OOMs (which are probably causing
>> swap partition handling on the main HDD to contribute to the contention).
>>
>> IOW, we seem to still have too much ugly lock contention interaction
>> between expectedly isolated parts of the system.
>>
>> OTOH the main problem likely still is overly large pressure induced by a
>> thoroughly unthrottled dd 300M, resulting in sync-challenged ext3 and swap
>> activity (this time on the same device!) to break completely, and also OOMs to occur.
>>
>> Probably overly global ext3 sync handling manages to grab a couple
>> more global system locks (bdi, swapping, page handling, ...)
>> before being contended, causing other, non-ext3-challenged
>> parts of the system (e.g. the swap partition on the _same_ device)
>> to not make any progress in the meantime.
>>
>> per-bdi writeback patches (see
>> http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?12,32355,33238,page=2 ) might
>> have handled a related issue.
>>
>>
>> Following is a SysRq-W trace (plus OOM traces) at a problematic moment during 300M copy
>> after firefox - and thus sync invocation - launch (there's a backtrace of an "ls" that
>> got stuck for perhaps half a minute on the main, _unaffected_, ext3
>> HDD - and almost all other traces here are ext3-bound as well).
>>
>>
>> SysRq : HELP : loglevel(0-9) reBoot Crash show-all-locks(D) terminate-all-tasks(E) memory-full-oom-kill(F) kill-all-tasks(I) thaw-filesystems(J) saK show-memory-usage(M) nice-all-RT-tasks(N) powerOff show-registers(P) show-all-timers(Q) unRaw Sync show-task-states(T) Unmount show-blocked-tasks(W)
>> ata1: clearing spurious IRQ
>> ata1: clearing spurious IRQ
>> Xorg invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, oom_adj=0
>
> This is GFP_KERNEL.
>
>> Pid: 2924, comm: Xorg Tainted: G        W  2.6.34-rc3 #8
>> Call Trace:
>>  [<c105d881>] T.382+0x44/0x110
>>  [<c105d978>] T.381+0x2b/0xe1
>>  [<c105db2e>] __out_of_memory+0x100/0x112
>>  [<c105dbb4>] out_of_memory+0x74/0x9c
>>  [<c105fd41>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3c5/0x493
>>  [<c105fe1e>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x2c
>>  [<c1086400>] __pollwait+0x4c/0xa4
>>  [<c120130e>] unix_poll+0x1a/0x93
>>  [<c11a6a77>] sock_poll+0x12/0x15
>>  [<c1085d21>] do_select+0x336/0x53a
>>  [<c10ec5c4>] ? cfq_set_request+0x1d8/0x2ec
>>  [<c10863b4>] ? __pollwait+0x0/0xa4
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c1086458>] ? pollwake+0x0/0x60
>>  [<c10f46c9>] ? _copy_from_user+0x42/0x127
>>  [<c10860cc>] core_sys_select+0x1a7/0x291
>>  [<c1214063>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x1d/0x21
>>  [<c1026b7f>] ? do_setitimer+0x160/0x18c
>>  [<c103b066>] ? ktime_get_ts+0xba/0xc4
>>  [<c108635e>] sys_select+0x68/0x84
>>  [<c1002690>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
>> Mem-Info:
>> DMA per-cpu:
>> CPU    0: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
>> Normal per-cpu:
>> CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  46
>> active_anon:34886 inactive_anon:41460 isolated_anon:1
>>  active_file:13576 inactive_file:27884 isolated_file:65
>>  unevictable:0 dirty:4788 writeback:5675 unstable:0
>>  free:1198 slab_reclaimable:1952 slab_unreclaimable:2594
>>  mapped:10152 shmem:56 pagetables:742 bounce:0
>> DMA free:2052kB min:84kB low:104kB high:124kB active_anon:940kB inactive_anon:3876kB active_file:212kB inactive_file:8224kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15804kB mlocked:0kB dirty:3448kB writeback:752kB mapped:80kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:160kB slab_unreclaimable:124kB kernel_stack:40kB pagetables:48kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:20096 all_unreclaimable? yes
>> lowmem_reserve[]: 0 492 492
>> Normal free:2740kB min:2792kB low:3488kB high:4188kB active_anon:138604kB inactive_anon:161964kB active_file:54092kB inactive_file:103312kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):4kB isolated(file):260kB present:503848kB mlocked:0kB dirty:15704kB writeback:21948kB mapped:40528kB shmem:224kB slab_reclaimable:7648kB slab_unreclaimable:10252kB kernel_stack:1632kB pagetables:2920kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:73056 all_unreclaimable? no
>> lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
>> DMA: 513*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2052kB
>> Normal: 685*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2740kB
>> 56122 total pagecache pages
>> 14542 pages in swap cache
>> Swap cache stats: add 36404, delete 21862, find 8669/10118
>> Free swap  = 671696kB
>> Total swap = 755048kB
>> 131034 pages RAM
>> 3214 pages reserved
>> 94233 pages shared
>> 80751 pages non-shared
>> Out of memory: kill process 3462 (kdeinit4) score 95144 or a child
>
> shmem=56 is ignorable, and
> active_file+inactive_file=13576+27884=41460 < 56122 total pagecache pages.
>
> Where are the 14606 file pages gone?

swapcache?


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Wu Fengguang]

> >> active_anon:34886 inactive_anon:41460 isolated_anon:1
> >> A active_file:13576 inactive_file:27884 isolated_file:65
> >> A unevictable:0 dirty:4788 writeback:5675 unstable:0
> >> A free:1198 slab_reclaimable:1952 slab_unreclaimable:2594
> >> A mapped:10152 shmem:56 pagetables:742 bounce:0
> >> DMA free:2052kB min:84kB low:104kB high:124kB active_anon:940kB inactive_anon:3876kB active_file:212kB inactive_file:8224kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15804kB mlocked:0kB dirty:3448kB writeback:752kB mapped:80kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:160kB slab_unreclaimable:124kB kernel_stack:40kB pagetables:48kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:20096 all_unreclaimable? yes
> >> lowmem_reserve[]: 0 492 492
> >> Normal free:2740kB min:2792kB low:3488kB high:4188kB active_anon:138604kB inactive_anon:161964kB active_file:54092kB inactive_file:103312kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):4kB isolated(file):260kB present:503848kB mlocked:0kB dirty:15704kB writeback:21948kB mapped:40528kB shmem:224kB slab_reclaimable:7648kB slab_unreclaimable:10252kB kernel_stack:1632kB pagetables:2920kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:73056 all_unreclaimable? no
> >> lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
> >> DMA: 513*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2052kB
> >> Normal: 685*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2740kB
> >> 56122 total pagecache pages
> >> 14542 pages in swap cache
> >> Swap cache stats: add 36404, delete 21862, find 8669/10118
> >> Free swap A = 671696kB
> >> Total swap = 755048kB
> >> 131034 pages RAM
> >> 3214 pages reserved
> >> 94233 pages shared
> >> 80751 pages non-shared
> >> Out of memory: kill process 3462 (kdeinit4) score 95144 or a child
> >
> > shmem=56 is ignorable, and
> > active_file+inactive_file=13576+27884=41460 < 56122 total pagecache pages.
> >
> > Where are the 14606 file pages gone?
> 
> swapcache?

Ah exactly!

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 03:00:50PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Many applications (this one and below) are stuck in
> wait_on_page_writeback(). I guess this is why "heavy write to
> irrelevant partition stalls the whole system".  They are stuck on page
> allocation. Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight, so reclaim
> pressure is a bit high, which triggers the wait-on-writeback logic.

"Your 512MB system memory is a bit tight".
Heh, try to survive making such a statement 15 years ago ;)
(but you likely meant this in the context of inducing a whopping 300MB write)

Thank you for your reply, I'll test the patch ASAP (with large writes
and Firefox sync mixed in), maybe this will improve things already.

Andreas Mohr

--
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>

Re: 32GB SSD on USB1.1 P3/700 == ___HELL___ (2.6.34-rc3)

[Andreas Mohr]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:17:02PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Thank you for your reply, I'll test the patch ASAP (with large writes
> and Firefox sync mixed in), maybe this will improve things already.

Indeed, AFAICS this definitely seems MUCH better than before.
I had to do a full kernel rebuild (due to CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO
changes; with no changed configs though).
I threw some extra load into the mix (read 400MB instead of 300 through
USB1.1, ran gimp, grepped over the entire /usr partition etc.pp.),
so far not nearly as severe as before, and no OOMs either.
Launched Firefox some time after starting 400MB creation, pretty ok
still. Some annoying lags sometimes of course, but nothing absolutely
earth-shattering as experienced before.
Things really appear to be a LOT better.

OK, so which way to go?

Thanks a lot,

Andreas Mohr

--
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>