xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: Do not block forever at shrink_inactive_list().

To: rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx, Motohiro.Kosaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: Do not block forever at shrink_inactive_list().
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:45:26 +0900
Cc: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, riel@xxxxxxxxxx, kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx, kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1406031442170.19491@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20140520063024.GH18954@dastard> <201405202358.ADF10119.SMOFOQLFtOVHJF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6B2BA408B38BA1478B473C31C3D2074E31D59D8673@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201405262045.CDG95893.HLFFOSFMQOVOJt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1406031442170.19491@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 
> > In shrink_inactive_list(), we do not insert delay at
> > 
> >   if (!sc->hibernation_mode && !current_is_kswapd())
> >     wait_iff_congested(zone, BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > 
> > if sc->hibernation_mode != 0.
> > Follow the same reason, we should not insert delay at
> > 
> >   while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
> >     congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > 
> >     /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> >     if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >       return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> >   }
> > 
> > if sc->hibernation_mode != 0.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmscan.c |    3 +++
> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 32c661d..89c42ca 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1362,6 +1362,9 @@ static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int 
> > file,
> >     if (current_is_kswapd())
> >             return 0;
> >  
> > +   if (sc->hibernation_mode)
> > +           return 0;
> > +
> >     if (!global_reclaim(sc))
> >             return 0;
> >  
> 
> This isn't the only too_many_isolated() functions that do a delay, how is 
> the too_many_isolated() in mm/compaction.c different?
> 

I don't know. But today I realized that this patch is not sufficient.

I'm trying to find why __alloc_pages_slowpath() cannot return for many minutes
when a certain type of memory pressure is given on a RHEL7 environment with
4 CPU / 2GB RAM. Today I tried to use ftrace for examining the breakdown of
time-consuming functions inside __alloc_pages_slowpath(). But on the first run,
all processes are trapped into this too_many_isolated()/congestion_wait() loop
while kswapd is not running; stalling forever because nobody can perform
operations for making too_many_isolated() to return 0.

This means that, under rare circumstances, it is possible that all processes
other than kswapd are trapped into too_many_isolated()/congestion_wait() loop
while kswapd is sleeping because this loop assumes that somebody else shall
wake up kswapd and kswapd shall perform operations for making
too_many_isolated() to return 0. However, we cannot guarantee that kswapd is
waken by somebody nor kswapd is not blocked by blocking operations inside
shrinker functions (e.g. mutex_lock()).

We need some more changes. I'm thinking memory allocation watchdog thread.
Add an "unsigned long" field to "struct task_struct", set jiffies to the field
upon entry of GFP_WAIT-able memory allocation attempts, and clear the field
upon returning from GFP_WAIT-able memory allocation attempts. A kernel thread
periodically scans task list and compares the field and jiffies, and (at least)
print warning messages (maybe optionally trigger OOM-killer or kernel panic)
if single memory allocation attempt is taking too long (e.g. 60 seconds).
What do you think?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>