From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759358AbZFIIZ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:25:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757972AbZFIIZm (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:25:42 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:45189 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758861AbZFIIZk (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:25:40 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,330,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="152163675" Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:25:39 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang To: Mel Gorman Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Christoph Lameter , "Zhang, Yanmin" , "linuxram@us.ibm.com" , linux-mm , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA Message-ID: <20090609082539.GA6897@localhost> References: <1244466090-10711-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1244466090-10711-2-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20090609015822.GA6740@localhost> <20090609081424.GD18380@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090609081424.GD18380@csn.ul.ie> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:14:25PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:01:28PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that is a > > > more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA distances, > > > zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean unmapped pages will be > > > reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being met. The problem is that > > > zone_reclaim() can be in a situation where it scans excessively without > > > making progress. > > > > > > One such situation is where a large tmpfs mount is occupying a large > > > percentage of memory overall. The pages do not get cleaned or reclaimed by > > > zone_reclaim(), but the lists are uselessly scanned frequencly making the > > > CPU spin at 100%. The scanning occurs because zone_reclaim() cannot tell > > > in advance the scan is pointless because the counters do not distinguish > > > between pagecache pages backed by disk and by RAM. The observation in > > > the field is that malloc() stalls for a long time (minutes in some cases) > > > when this situation occurs. > > > > > > Accounting for ram-backed file pages was considered but not implemented on > > > the grounds it would be introducing new branches and expensive checks into > > > the page cache add/remove patches and increase the number of statistics > > > needed in the zone. As zone_reclaim() failing is currently considered a > > > corner case, this seemed like overkill. Note, if there are a large number > > > of reports about CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA that is fixed by disabling > > > zone_reclaim, then this assumption is false and zone_reclaim() scanning > > > and failing is not a corner case but a common occurance > > > > > > This patch reintroduces zone_reclaim_interval which was removed by commit > > > 34aa1330f9b3c5783d269851d467326525207422 [zoned vm counters: zone_reclaim: > > > remove /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_interval] because the zone counters were > > > considered sufficient to determine in advance if the scan would succeed. > > > As unsuccessful scans can still occur, zone_reclaim_interval is still > > > required. > > > > Can we avoid the user visible parameter zone_reclaim_interval? > > > > You could, but then there is no way of disabling it by setting it to 0 > either. I can't imagine why but the desired behaviour might really be to > spin and never go off-node unless there is no other option. They might > want to set it to 0 for example when determining what the right value for > zone_reclaim_mode is for their workloads. > > > That means to introduce some heuristics for it. > > I suspect the vast majority of users will ignore it unless they are runing > zone_reclaim_mode at the same time and even then will probably just leave > it as 30 as a LRU scan every 30 seconds worst case is not going to show up > on many profiles. > > > Since the whole point > > is to avoid 100% CPU usage, we can take down the time used for this > > failed zone reclaim (T) and forbid zone reclaim until (NOW + 100*T). > > > > i.e. just fix it internally at 100 seconds? How is that better than > having an obscure tunable? I think if this heuristic exists at all, it's > important that an administrator be able to turn it off if absolutly > necessary and so something must be user-visible. That 100*T don't mean 100 seconds. It means to keep CPU usage under 1%: after busy scanning for time T, let's go relax for 100*T.