Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: unreserve highatomic free pages fully before OOM

[Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:26:06AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 11-10-16 16:09:45, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:50:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 11-10-16 14:01:41, Minchan Kim wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Also, your patch makes retry loop greater than MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES
> > > > if unreserve_highatomic_pageblock returns true. Theoretically,
> > > > it would make live lock. You might argue it's *really really* rare
> > > > but I don't want to add such subtle thing.
> > > > Maybe, we could drain when no_progress_loops == MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES.
> > > 
> > > What would be the scenario when we would really livelock here? How can
> > > we have unreserve_highatomic_pageblock returning true for ever?
> > 
> > Other context freeing highorder page/reallocating repeatedly while
> > a process stucked direct reclaim is looping with should_reclaim_retry.
> 
> If we unreserve those pages then we should converge to OOM. Btw. this
> can happen even without highmem reserves. Heavy short lived allocations
> might keep us looping at the lowest priority. They are just too unlikely
> to care about.

Indeed.
> 
> > > > > aggressive to me. If we just do one at the time we have a chance to
> > > > > keep some reserves if the OOM situation is really ephemeral.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does this patch work in your usecase?
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't test but I guess it works but it has problems I mentioned
> > > > above. 
> > > 
> > > Please do not make this too over complicated and be practical. I do not
> > > really want to dismiss your usecase but I am really not convinced that
> > > such a "perfectly fit into all memory" situations are sustainable and
> > > justify to make the whole code more complex. I agree that we can at
> > > least try to do something to release those reserves but let's do it
> > > as simple as possible.
> > 
> > If you think it's too complicated, how about this?
> 
> Definitely better than the original patch. Little bit too aggressive
> because we could really go with one block at the time. But this is a
> minor thing and easily fixable...
> 
> > @@ -2154,12 +2156,24 @@ static void unreserve_highatomic_pageblock(const struct alloc_context *ac)
> >  			 * may increase.
> >  			 */
> >  			set_pageblock_migratetype(page, ac->migratetype);
> > -			move_freepages_block(zone, page, ac->migratetype);
> > -			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> > -			return;
> > +			ret = move_freepages_block(zone, page,
> > +						ac->migratetype);
> > +			/*
> > +			 * By race with page freeing functions, !highatomic
> > +			 * pageblocks can have free pages in highatomic free
> > +			 * list so if drain is true, try to unreserve every
> > +			 * free pages in highatomic free list without bailing
> > +			 * out.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (!drain) {
> 
> 			if (ret)
> > +				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> > +				return ret;
> > +			}
> 
> arguably this would work better also for !drain case which currently
> tries to unreserve but in case of the race it would do nothing.

I thought it but I was afraid if you say again it's over complicated.
I will do it with your SOB in next spin.

Thanks, Michal.

> 
> >  		}
> >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> >  /* Remove an element from the buddy allocator from the fallback list */
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
> 
> --
> 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>

--
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>