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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 CD442C0651F for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734DC20659 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="czlZdJs7" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 734DC20659 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=oracle.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BE7016B0006; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B70C08E0003; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:11:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9E9F08E0001; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:11:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-io1-f70.google.com (mail-io1-f70.google.com [209.85.166.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF5F6B0006 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 11:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 132so4085191iou.0 for ; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:11:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:dkim-signature:subject:to:cc:references:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J2yR5u6KiY8S3i26WlPbwZicZznOd9rvYFqBPqXulEc=; b=hCO4ocqvcHV3xmcGpoGcn6uOQT3U702ifUC48nB6NHQ6dhusOJCGX0UDEXIFNHOxFT Zy9q838vkIzlbm/lLPqHJuI4jdxY2i7CnuOtZaJa3mFmhiSUUKdcQcU3VER3pjryMKRY 0bY2aM4GhfATE1+ECpcmEGIY1KfKFpS7NQuaMtCTyNT4eErDA1Dao7vrdAtNpawGoD8L BCbgvZNdcWXSqi6CFWg20+lpCTs3qD1wYbohqRr97bpYadztsskmUXyR7h17uKYLOEY/ IJ8XUmJsRV9VHs1aMx5mFRdSaGhpjFDHZhwW4C24LQEHg7LcXCIeKdqRuwREwCPca/mU Ihrw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX/J1V5Ub8ZR0hGPsd3Xy0waPPMo4ZRCYV1mb7leeOzyg3BkqJN YGMtA1tZAPb9sxrQxhCxMwbN2X1B9pDZGo4UytD5BUVRwb9VhWxpf+sDmFCYsUP7vn/I9NnppuM dYLhqMXewTEYvsxcBJAvweJHmOe8XWthcOBrcbyBgHzWf1tKaRjHuFj2Uhoj/Nl1mBQ== X-Received: by 2002:a02:a90a:: with SMTP id n10mr49044616jam.61.1562253118184; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:11:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzFKLuyWGlIX0j6qmD0jPheMa7WzUnJwnjQJpFbdr7i40yfPfSCYJeVhKweEhfbbHyT2BA/ X-Received: by 2002:a02:a90a:: with SMTP id n10mr49044566jam.61.1562253117351; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:11:57 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1562253117; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=07N3XE0TQzqX6KHazX3T2HlS+i8S+QIBiW+GecAy5Lozn9R26XLB8zMJW1XA8eT8/8 bq0aPYekbyWvrNldhZiL3+51gR7zAxACpqIHhuxYxnn83A/EMKrHVmyJv5SOVTlM7/sx AtGkd+tL5T0ZdqO7wD581m1GvRbEufCkihOEKRG6ZPOZylHOf7eEKxo0NyQQdLjelGMl u5tm5awmUBjMpJysIZA0yIvV1ThahPxQdOgMugNLCg3h7upXf4KhqrAxNvPUycC41hsP zolKTvkciT0ru54XbYqFQWhijNn8l+nx5BAj1wyVBVLE5a0TuLhas6APU9Arb70nmhU/ 2FuA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject :dkim-signature; bh=J2yR5u6KiY8S3i26WlPbwZicZznOd9rvYFqBPqXulEc=; b=Ykds9I3cIYDyeXcpvwR9tGUin9rb4FqPL1vewhisuS4DNglpbCUnHhMEv5OXpLEQWe SdVJa41Isv+dafjW6cT1tH9zyA2s8RiW7IDH/8p9Gq/2P7qRljA38ESLbI+gcf42fPAo cNpaQnQ0bIe4IZvVDKc3pnNv3huBmQ8a1tojqzUuvIt1ENFcbjB2eGL6u6yf+P/+tfC3 E+Aug/bMXWJMNeq6FPk5bI3g6Ji61fDSJoCPb4iDfxaMJkA0d2mqS5QMqMWLaaPo4yRK JO9CzCYJqt6sWDhlGMGG9xYOXN2hDJlSFxr1kte9uVM4/l0vJVbcuJTOxRuTsEllj1bX 1sBw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@oracle.com header.s=corp-2018-07-02 header.b=czlZdJs7; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mike.kravetz@oracle.com designates 141.146.126.78 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mike.kravetz@oracle.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=oracle.com Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com. [141.146.126.78]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h18si8098961ioj.95.2019.07.04.08.11.57 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mike.kravetz@oracle.com designates 141.146.126.78 as permitted sender) client-ip=141.146.126.78; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@oracle.com header.s=corp-2018-07-02 header.b=czlZdJs7; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mike.kravetz@oracle.com designates 141.146.126.78 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mike.kravetz@oracle.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=oracle.com Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x64F8w45160027; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:11:54 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=J2yR5u6KiY8S3i26WlPbwZicZznOd9rvYFqBPqXulEc=; b=czlZdJs7+gd34nNHXUlV9AOB+31iyg2QSKaLzL+UpBjqj2JDSL+IWT+1BduuMXvvULbA vdAL5tkcJD15wwswbHYOdGRy9jY/RWfBTFsIUluDITjsGRT8Ya8cF/ZHhFZBDMLKrqej WGt9b0T834VZZQqGYUbCn4vmN7gQvZC/4wE75U2Cpj00aAPy58JXjRQPGjKnaVjW2kFc dnoVa1qktKZ0BdfucUhrddiQ1zdk9tMS9bbvI1zLRRCNAN7N96MbFCH5486f9KGq6Str p4NbLViO19GGZZSPirwRfrGy1yVb6e4lhj+rwkHuwzUVs8GNCZtvFImaH6ObsZrthre2 Sw== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2te5tbybw1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 04 Jul 2019 15:11:54 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x64F7kZf145457; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:11:53 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2th5qm3er2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 04 Jul 2019 15:11:53 +0000 Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x64FBkvv012480; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:11:46 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.222] (/71.63.128.209) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:11:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded? To: Michal Hocko Cc: Mel Gorman , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linux-kernel , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner References: <20190423071953.GC25106@dhcp22.suse.cz> <04329fea-cd34-4107-d1d4-b2098ebab0ec@suse.cz> <20190701085920.GB2812@suse.de> <80036eed-993d-1d24-7ab6-e495f01b1caa@oracle.com> <20190703094325.GB2737@techsingularity.net> <571d5557-2153-59ea-334b-8636cc1a49c9@oracle.com> <20190704110903.GE5620@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Mike Kravetz Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:11:44 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190704110903.GE5620@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9307 signatures=668688 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=962 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907040191 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9307 signatures=668688 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=989 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907040192 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 7/4/19 4:09 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 03-07-19 16:54:35, Mike Kravetz wrote: >> On 7/3/19 2:43 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: >>> Indeed. I'm getting knocked offline shortly so I didn't give this the >>> time it deserves but it appears that part of this problem is >>> hugetlb-specific when one node is full and can enter into this continual >>> loop due to __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL requiring both nr_reclaimed and >>> nr_scanned to be zero. >> >> Yes, I am not aware of any other large order allocations consistently made >> with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL. But, I did not look too closely. Michal believes >> that hugetlb pages allocations should use __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL. > > Yes. The argument is that this is controlable by an admin and failures > should be prevented as much as possible. I didn't get to understand > should_continue_reclaim part of the problem but I have a strong feeling > that __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL handling at that layer is not correct. What > happens if it is simply removed and we rely only on the retry mechanism > from the page allocator instead? Does the success rate is reduced > considerably? It certainly will be reduced. I 'think' it will be hard to predict how much it will be reduced as this will depend on the state of memory usage and fragmentation at the time of the attempt. I can try to measure this, but I will be a few days due to U.S. holiday. -- Mike Kravetz