From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871E0C33C9E for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B63D2467E for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="m2rW2+a8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4B63D2467E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A91236B000A; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A41C66B000C; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:49:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 957CE6B000E; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:49:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0110.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.110]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803BB6B000A for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D9BA180AD804 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:49:01 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76426720482.22.crush13_4eadb2ff2eb0f X-HE-Tag: crush13_4eadb2ff2eb0f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5296 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:49:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=CNzsEssv2U2BQoZ0e4P2mdfZ/WHkr2kZtAUOWkDXCNQ=; b=m2rW2+a8mL4KRYTAsWcx1j7fw e3NPpzDimNhAUDZ+MRcWP+PGxRghb8bvBratooFlxaiVaIjUl+ifcXG4aIkAwFIFB+yFJs+STiqMx hRpPPu9JMQullMsYfFDl1khUbqKBLSBciKo8h30y+XPR/1wkewFlto3AKByVqBmVkcEiNTZfmxKdt osE5oCdW2uVSSOG14peWoJT5IdgsQg0JRBo8aU3Wi1LZvR5BY5bUNHR7ctHnvZuoveQ38hOnDsESV OLbFKWfymwepmkL/j4uO5HZSp2W8bLJ1H/OU6ns8W+Qe75IjrjpCgkzULEZZeNeiRtNkI7+YAqVbq tiYAH+Y+A==; Received: from willy by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iwOQT-0008Mh-IC; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 10:48:57 +0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 02:48:57 -0800 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Michal Hocko Cc: Cong Wang , LKML , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid blocking lock_page() in kcompactd Message-ID: <20200128104857.GC6615@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20200110073822.GC29802@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200121090048.GG29276@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200126233935.GA11536@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200127150024.GN1183@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200127190653.GA8708@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200128081712.GA18145@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200128083044.GB6615@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200128091352.GC18145@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200128091352.GC18145@dhcp22.suse.cz> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:13:52AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 28-01-20 00:30:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 09:17:12AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 27-01-20 11:06:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 04:00:24PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Sun 26-01-20 15:39:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 11:53:55AM -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > > > > > > > I suspect the process gets stuck in the retry loop in try_charge(), as > > > > > > > the _shortest_ stacktrace of the perf samples indicated: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cycles:ppp: > > > > > > > ffffffffa72963db mem_cgroup_iter > > > > > > > ffffffffa72980ca mem_cgroup_oom_unlock > > > > > > > ffffffffa7298c15 try_charge > > > > > > > ffffffffa729a886 mem_cgroup_try_charge > > > > > > > ffffffffa720ec03 __add_to_page_cache_locked > > > > > > > ffffffffa720ee3a add_to_page_cache_lru > > > > > > > ffffffffa7312ddb iomap_readpages_actor > > > > > > > ffffffffa73133f7 iomap_apply > > > > > > > ffffffffa73135da iomap_readpages > > > > > > > ffffffffa722062e read_pages > > > > > > > ffffffffa7220b3f __do_page_cache_readahead > > > > > > > ffffffffa7210554 filemap_fault > > > > > > > ffffffffc039e41f __xfs_filemap_fault > > > > > > > ffffffffa724f5e7 __do_fault > > > > > > > ffffffffa724c5f2 __handle_mm_fault > > > > > > > ffffffffa724cbc6 handle_mm_fault > > > > > > > ffffffffa70a313e __do_page_fault > > > > > > > ffffffffa7a00dfe page_fault > > > > > > I am not deeply familiar with the readahead code. But is there really a > > > high oerder allocation (order > 1) that would trigger compaction in the > > > phase when pages are locked? > > > > Thanks to sl*b, yes: > > > > radix_tree_node 80890 102536 584 28 4 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 3662 3662 0 > > > > so it's allocating 4 pages for an allocation of a 576 byte node. > > I am not really sure that we do sync migration for costly orders. Doesn't the stack trace above indicate that we're doing migration as the result of an allocation in add_to_page_cache_lru()? > > > Btw. the compaction rejects to consider file backed pages when __GFP_FS > > > is not present AFAIR. > > > > Ah, that would save us. > > So the NOFS comes from the mapping GFP mask, right? That is something I > was hoping to get rid of eventually :/ Anyway it would be better to have > an explicit NOFS with a comment explaining why we need that. If for > nothing else then for documentation. I'd also like to see the mapping GFP mask go away, but rather than seeing an explicit GFP_NOFS here, I'd rather see the memalloc_nofs API used. I just don't understand the whole problem space well enough to know where to put the call for best effect.