From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-next: Tree for Jun 1] __khugepaged_exit rwsem_down_write_failed lockup
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:51:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160603135154.GD29930@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160602122109.GM1995@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Testing with the patch makes some sense as well, but I would like to
> hear from Andrea whether the approach is good because I am wondering why
> he hasn't done that before - it feels so much simpler than the current
> code.
The down_write in the exit path comes from __ksm_exit. If you don't
like it there I'd suggest to also remove it from __ksm_exit.
This is a proposed cleanup correct?
The first thing that I can notice is that khugepaged_test_exit() then
can only be called and provide the expected retval, after
atomic_inc_not_zero(mm_users). Also note mmget_not_zero() should be
used instead.
However the code still uses khugepaged_test_exit in __khugepage_enter
that won't increase the mm_users, so then the patch relaxes that check
too much, albeit only for a debug check not strictly a bug.
The cons of this change purely that it'll decrease the responsiveness
in releasing the RAM of a killed task a bit.
To me the fewer time we hold the mm_users the better and I don't see
an obvious runtime improvement coming from this change. It's a bit
simpler yes, but the down_write in the exit path is well understood,
ksm does the same thing and it's in a slow path (it only happens if
the mm that exited is the current one under scan by either ksmd or
khugepaged, so normally the down_write is not executed in the exit
path and the "mm" is collected right away both as a mm_users and
mm_count).
In short I think it's a tradeoff: pros) removes down_write in a slow
path of the the mm exit which may simplify the code a bit, cons) it
could increase the latency in freeing memory as result of a task
exiting or being killed during the khugepaged scan, for example while
the THP is being allocated. While compaction runs to allocate the THP
in collapse_huge_page, if the task is killed currently the memory is
released right away, without waiting for the allocation to succeed or
fail.
I don't see a big enough problem with the down_write in a slow path of
khugepaged_exit to justify the increased latency in releasing memory.
I was very happy by Oleg's patch reducing the mm_users holding of
userfaultfd too. That was controlled by userland so it would only be
an issue for non-cooperative usage which isn't upstream yet, and it
was also much wider than this one would become with the patch applied,
but I liked the direction.
If prefer instead to remove the down_write, you probably could move
the test_exit before the down_read/write to bail out before taking the
lock: you don't need the mmap_sem to do test_exit anymore. The only
reason the text_exit would remain in fact is just to reduce the
latency of the memory freeing, it then becomes a voluntary preempt
cond_resched() to release the memory to make a parallel ;), but unable
to let the kernel free the memory while the THP allocation runs.
Thanks,
Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-03 13:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-01 3:11 linux-next: Tree for Jun 1 Stephen Rothwell
2016-06-02 1:48 ` [linux-next: Tree for Jun 1] __khugepaged_exit rwsem_down_write_failed lockup Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-02 9:21 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-02 12:08 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-02 12:21 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 13:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2016-06-03 14:46 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 15:10 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2016-06-07 7:34 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 8:19 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-06-03 7:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-03 7:25 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 8:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-03 9:55 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 10:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 13:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-03 13:45 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-03 13:49 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-04 7:51 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-06 8:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-02 13:24 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-06-02 18:58 ` Ebru Akagunduz
2016-06-03 1:00 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-03 1:29 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-03 4:14 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-06-03 12:28 ` [PATCH] mm, thp: fix locking inconsistency in collapse_huge_page Ebru Akagunduz
2016-06-06 13:05 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-06-09 3:51 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160603135154.GD29930@redhat.com \
--to=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).