Re: kswapd0: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x820(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0 (Kernel v6.5.9, 32bit ppc)

Takero Funaki
2024-06-06T17:14:20Z

2024年6月6日(木) 8:42 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>:

> I think there are multiple ways to go forward here:
> (a) Make the number of zpools a config option, leave the default as
> 32, but allow special use cases to set it to 1 or similar. This is
> probably not preferable because it is not clear to users how to set
> it, but the idea is that no one will have to set it except special use
> cases such as Erhard's (who will want to set it to 1 in this case).
>
> (b) Make the number of zpools scale linearly with the number of CPUs.
> Maybe something like nr_cpus/4 or nr_cpus/8. The problem with this
> approach is that with a large number of CPUs, too many zpools will
> start having diminishing returns. Fragmentation will keep increasing,
> while the scalability/concurrency gains will diminish.
>
> (c) Make the number of zpools scale logarithmically with the number of
> CPUs. Maybe something like 4log2(nr_cpus). This will keep the number
> of zpools from increasing too much and close to the status quo. The
> problem is that at a small number of CPUs (e.g. 2), 4log2(nr_cpus)
> will actually give a nr_zpools > nr_cpus. So we will need to come up
> with a more fancy magic equation (e.g. 4log2(nr_cpus/4)).
>

I just posted a patch to limit the number of zpools, with some
theoretical background explained in the code comments. I believe that
2 * CPU linearly is sufficient to reduce contention, but the scale can
be reduced further. All CPUs are trying to allocate/free zswap is
unlikely to happen.
How many concurrent accesses were the original 32 zpools supposed to
handle? I think it was for 16 cpu or more. or nr_cpus/4 would be
enough?

--

<flintglass@gmail.com>