Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 04 6月, 2020 5 次提交
  3. 03 6月, 2020 1 次提交
    • N
      mm/writeback: replace PF_LESS_THROTTLE with PF_LOCAL_THROTTLE · a37b0715
      由 NeilBrown 提交于 
      PF_LESS_THROTTLE exists for loop-back nfsd (and a similar need in the
loop block driver and callers of prctl(PR_SET_IO_FLUSHER)), where a
daemon needs to write to one bdi (the final bdi) in order to free up
writes queued to another bdi (the client bdi).

The daemon sets PF_LESS_THROTTLE and gets a larger allowance of dirty
pages, so that it can still dirty pages after other processses have been
throttled.  The purpose of this is to avoid deadlock that happen when
the PF_LESS_THROTTLE process must write for any dirty pages to be freed,
but it is being thottled and cannot write.

This approach was designed when all threads were blocked equally,
independently on which device they were writing to, or how fast it was.
Since that time the writeback algorithm has changed substantially with
different threads getting different allowances based on non-trivial
heuristics.  This means the simple "add 25%" heuristic is no longer
reliable.

The important issue is not that the daemon needs a *larger* dirty page
allowance, but that it needs a *private* dirty page allowance, so that
dirty pages for the "client" bdi that it is helping to clear (the bdi
for an NFS filesystem or loop block device etc) do not affect the
throttling of the daemon writing to the "final" bdi.

This patch changes the heuristic so that the task is not throttled when
the bdi it is writing to has a dirty page count below below (or equal
to) the free-run threshold for that bdi.  This ensures it will always be
able to have some pages in flight, and so will not deadlock.

In a steady-state, it is expected that PF_LOCAL_THROTTLE tasks might
still be throttled by global threshold, but that is acceptable as it is
only the deadlock state that is interesting for this flag.

This approach of "only throttle when target bdi is busy" is consistent
with the other use of PF_LESS_THROTTLE in current_may_throttle(), were
it causes attention to be focussed only on the target bdi.

So this patch
 - renames PF_LESS_THROTTLE to PF_LOCAL_THROTTLE,
 - removes the 25% bonus that that flag gives, and
 - If PF_LOCAL_THROTTLE is set, don't delay at all unless the
   global and the local free-run thresholds are exceeded.

Note that previously realtime threads were treated the same as
PF_LESS_THROTTLE threads.  This patch does *not* change the behvaiour
for real-time threads, so it is now different from the behaviour of nfsd
and loop tasks.  I don't know what is wanted for realtime.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding style fixes]
Signed-off-by: NNeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Reviewed-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>	[nfsd]
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/87ftbf7gs3.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.nameSigned-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      a37b0715
  5. 08 5月, 2020 1 次提交
  7. 08 4月, 2020 1 次提交
  9. 03 4月, 2020 7 次提交
  11. 22 2月, 2020 1 次提交
    • G
      mm/vmscan.c: don't round up scan size for online memory cgroup · 76073c64
      由 Gavin Shan 提交于 
      Commit 68600f62 ("mm: don't miss the last page because of round-off
error") makes the scan size round up to @denominator regardless of the
memory cgroup's state, online or offline.  This affects the overall
reclaiming behavior: the corresponding LRU list is eligible for
reclaiming only when its size logically right shifted by @sc->priority
is bigger than zero in the former formula.

For example, the inactive anonymous LRU list should have at least 0x4000
pages to be eligible for reclaiming when we have 60/12 for
swappiness/priority and without taking scan/rotation ratio into account.

After the roundup is applied, the inactive anonymous LRU list becomes
eligible for reclaiming when its size is bigger than or equal to 0x1000
in the same condition.

    (0x4000 >> 12) * 60 / (60 + 140 + 1) = 1
    ((0x1000 >> 12) * 60) + 200) / (60 + 140 + 1) = 1

aarch64 has 512MB huge page size when the base page size is 64KB.  The
memory cgroup that has a huge page is always eligible for reclaiming in
that case.

The reclaiming is likely to stop after the huge page is reclaimed,
meaing the further iteration on @sc->priority and the silbing and child
memory cgroups will be skipped.  The overall behaviour has been changed.
This fixes the issue by applying the roundup to offlined memory cgroups
only, to give more preference to reclaim memory from offlined memory
cgroup.  It sounds reasonable as those memory is unlikedly to be used by
anyone.

The issue was found by starting up 8 VMs on a Ampere Mustang machine,
which has 8 CPUs and 16 GB memory.  Each VM is given with 2 vCPUs and
2GB memory.  It took 264 seconds for all VMs to be completely up and
784MB swap is consumed after that.  With this patch applied, it took 236
seconds and 60MB swap to do same thing.  So there is 10% performance
improvement for my case.  Note that KSM is disable while THP is enabled
in the testing.

         total     used    free   shared  buff/cache   available
   Mem:  16196    10065    2049       16        4081        3749
   Swap:  8175      784    7391
         total     used    free   shared  buff/cache   available
   Mem:  16196    11324    3656       24        1215        2936
   Swap:  8175       60    8115

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200211024514.8730-1-gshan@redhat.com
Fixes: 68600f62 ("mm: don't miss the last page because of round-off error")
Signed-off-by: NGavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NRoman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>	[4.20+]
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      76073c64
  13. 01 2月, 2020 3 次提交
  15. 18 12月, 2019 1 次提交
  17. 02 12月, 2019 14 次提交
  19. 01 12月, 2019 1 次提交
  21. 19 10月, 2019 2 次提交
    • W
      mm/vmscan.c: support removing arbitrary sized pages from mapping · 906d278d
      由 William Kucharski 提交于 
      __remove_mapping() assumes that pages can only be either base pages or
HPAGE_PMD_SIZE.  Ask the page what size it is.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191017164223.2762148-4-songliubraving@fb.com
Fixes: 99cb0dbd ("mm,thp: add read-only THP support for (non-shmem) FS")
Signed-off-by: NWilliam Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: NMatthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NSong Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Acked-by: NYang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      906d278d
    • H
      mm: memcg: get number of pages on the LRU list in memcgroup base on lru_zone_size · b11edebb
      由 Honglei Wang 提交于 
      Commit 1a61ab80 ("mm: memcontrol: replace zone summing with
lruvec_page_state()") has made lruvec_page_state to use per-cpu counters
instead of calculating it directly from lru_zone_size with an idea that
this would be more effective.

Tim has reported that this is not really the case for their database
benchmark which is showing an opposite results where lruvec_page_state
is taking up a huge chunk of CPU cycles (about 25% of the system time
which is roughly 7% of total cpu cycles) on 5.3 kernels.  The workload
is running on a larger machine (96cpus), it has many cgroups (500) and
it is heavily direct reclaim bound.

Tim Chen said:

: The problem can also be reproduced by running simple multi-threaded
: pmbench benchmark with a fast Optane SSD swap (see profile below).
:
:
: 6.15%     3.08%  pmbench          [kernel.vmlinux]            [k] lruvec_lru_size
:             |
:             |--3.07%--lruvec_lru_size
:             |          |
:             |          |--2.11%--cpumask_next
:             |          |          |
:             |          |           --1.66%--find_next_bit
:             |          |
:             |           --0.57%--call_function_interrupt
:             |                     |
:             |                      --0.55%--smp_call_function_interrupt
:             |
:             |--1.59%--0x441f0fc3d009
:             |          _ops_rdtsc_init_base_freq
:             |          access_histogram
:             |          page_fault
:             |          __do_page_fault
:             |          handle_mm_fault
:             |          __handle_mm_fault
:             |          |
:             |           --1.54%--do_swap_page
:             |                     swapin_readahead
:             |                     swap_cluster_readahead
:             |                     |
:             |                      --1.53%--read_swap_cache_async
:             |                                __read_swap_cache_async
:             |                                alloc_pages_vma
:             |                                __alloc_pages_nodemask
:             |                                __alloc_pages_slowpath
:             |                                try_to_free_pages
:             |                                do_try_to_free_pages
:             |                                shrink_node
:             |                                shrink_node_memcg
:             |                                |
:             |                                |--0.77%--lruvec_lru_size
:             |                                |
:             |                                 --0.76%--inactive_list_is_low
:             |                                           |
:             |                                            --0.76%--lruvec_lru_size
:             |
:              --1.50%--measure_read
:                        page_fault
:                        __do_page_fault
:                        handle_mm_fault
:                        __handle_mm_fault
:                        do_swap_page
:                        swapin_readahead
:                        swap_cluster_readahead
:                        |
:                         --1.48%--read_swap_cache_async
:                                   __read_swap_cache_async
:                                   alloc_pages_vma
:                                   __alloc_pages_nodemask
:                                   __alloc_pages_slowpath
:                                   try_to_free_pages
:                                   do_try_to_free_pages
:                                   shrink_node
:                                   shrink_node_memcg
:                                   |
:                                   |--0.75%--inactive_list_is_low
:                                   |          |
:                                   |           --0.75%--lruvec_lru_size
:                                   |
:                                    --0.73%--lruvec_lru_size

The likely culprit is the cache traffic the lruvec_page_state_local
generates.  Dave Hansen says:

: I was thinking purely of the cache footprint.  If it's reading
: pn->lruvec_stat_local->count[idx] is three separate cachelines, so 192
: bytes of cache *96 CPUs = 18k of data, mostly read-only.  1 cgroup would
: be 18k of data for the whole system and the caching would be pretty
: efficient and all 18k would probably survive a tight page fault loop in
: the L1.  500 cgroups would be ~90k of data per CPU thread which doesn't
: fit in the L1 and probably wouldn't survive a tight page fault loop if
: both logical threads were banging on different cgroups.
:
: It's just a theory, but it's why I noted the number of cgroups when I
: initially saw this show up in profiles

Fix the regression by partially reverting the said commit and calculate
the lru size explicitly.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190905071034.16822-1-honglei.wang@oracle.com
Fixes: 1a61ab80 ("mm: memcontrol: replace zone summing with lruvec_page_state()")
Signed-off-by: NHonglei Wang <honglei.wang@oracle.com>
Reported-by: NTim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: NTim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: NTim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>	[5.2+]
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      b11edebb
  23. 08 10月, 2019 3 次提交
    • C
      mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection · 1bc63fb1
      由 Chris Down 提交于 
      This patch is an incremental improvement on the existing
memory.{low,min} relative reclaim work to base its scan pressure
calculations on how much protection is available compared to the current
usage, rather than how much the current usage is over some protection
threshold.

This change doesn't change the experience for the user in the normal
case too much.  One benefit is that it replaces the (somewhat arbitrary)
100% cutoff with an indefinite slope, which makes it easier to ballpark
a memory.low value.

As well as this, the old methodology doesn't quite apply generically to
machines with varying amounts of physical memory.  Let's say we have a
top level cgroup, workload.slice, and another top level cgroup,
system-management.slice.  We want to roughly give 12G to
system-management.slice, so on a 32GB machine we set memory.low to 20GB
in workload.slice, and on a 64GB machine we set memory.low to 52GB.
However, because these are relative amounts to the total machine size,
while the amount of memory we want to generally be willing to yield to
system.slice is absolute (12G), we end up putting more pressure on
system.slice just because we have a larger machine and a larger workload
to fill it, which seems fairly unintuitive.  With this new behaviour, we
don't end up with this unintended side effect.

Previously the way that memory.low protection works is that if you are
50% over a certain baseline, you get 50% of your normal scan pressure.
This is certainly better than the previous cliff-edge behaviour, but it
can be improved even further by always considering memory under the
currently enforced protection threshold to be out of bounds.  This means
that we can set relatively low memory.low thresholds for variable or
bursty workloads while still getting a reasonable level of protection,
whereas with the previous version we may still trivially hit the 100%
clamp.  The previous 100% clamp is also somewhat arbitrary, whereas this
one is more concretely based on the currently enforced protection
threshold, which is likely easier to reason about.

There is also a subtle issue with the way that proportional reclaim
worked previously -- it promotes having no memory.low, since it makes
pressure higher during low reclaim.  This happens because we base our
scan pressure modulation on how far memory.current is between memory.min
and memory.low, but if memory.low is unset, we only use the overage
method.  In most cromulent configurations, this then means that we end
up with *more* pressure than with no memory.low at all when we're in low
reclaim, which is not really very usable or expected.

With this patch, memory.low and memory.min affect reclaim pressure in a
more understandable and composable way.  For example, from a user
standpoint, "protected" memory now remains untouchable from a reclaim
aggression standpoint, and users can also have more confidence that
bursty workloads will still receive some amount of guaranteed
protection.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190322160307.GA3316@chrisdown.nameSigned-off-by: NChris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Reviewed-by: NRoman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Acked-by: NJohannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      1bc63fb1
    • C
      mm, memcg: make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination · 9de7ca46
      由 Chris Down 提交于 
      Roman points out that when when we do the low reclaim pass, we scale the
reclaim pressure relative to position between 0 and the maximum
protection threshold.

However, if the maximum protection is based on memory.elow, and
memory.emin is above zero, this means we still may get binary behaviour
on second-pass low reclaim.  This is because we scale starting at 0, not
starting at memory.emin, and since we don't scan at all below emin, we
end up with cliff behaviour.

This should be a fairly uncommon case since usually we don't go into the
second pass, but it makes sense to scale our low reclaim pressure
starting at emin.

You can test this by catting two large sparse files, one in a cgroup
with emin set to some moderate size compared to physical RAM, and
another cgroup without any emin.  In both cgroups, set an elow larger
than 50% of physical RAM.  The one with emin will have less page
scanning, as reclaim pressure is lower.

Rebase on top of and apply the same idea as what was applied to handle
cgroup_memory=disable properly for the original proportional patch
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201045711.GA18302@chrisdown.name ("mm,
memcg: Handle cgroup_disable=memory when getting memcg protection").

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201051810.GA18895@chrisdown.nameSigned-off-by: NChris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Suggested-by: NRoman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Acked-by: NJohannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      9de7ca46
    • C
      mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim · 9783aa99
      由 Chris Down 提交于 
      cgroup v2 introduces two memory protection thresholds: memory.low
(best-effort) and memory.min (hard protection).  While they generally do
what they say on the tin, there is a limitation in their implementation
that makes them difficult to use effectively: that cliff behaviour often
manifests when they become eligible for reclaim.  This patch implements
more intuitive and usable behaviour, where we gradually mount more
reclaim pressure as cgroups further and further exceed their protection
thresholds.

This cliff edge behaviour happens because we only choose whether or not
to reclaim based on whether the memcg is within its protection limits
(see the use of mem_cgroup_protected in shrink_node), but we don't vary
our reclaim behaviour based on this information.  Imagine the following
timeline, with the numbers the lruvec size in this zone:

1. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=999999. 0 pages may be scanned.
2. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=1000000. 0 pages may be scanned.
3. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=1000001. 1000001* pages may be
   scanned. (?!)

* Of course, we won't usually scan all available pages in the zone even
  without this patch because of scan control priority, over-reclaim
  protection, etc.  However, as shown by the tests at the end, these
  techniques don't sufficiently throttle such an extreme change in input,
  so cliff-like behaviour isn't really averted by their existence alone.

Here's an example of how this plays out in practice.  At Facebook, we are
trying to protect various workloads from "system" software, like
configuration management tools, metric collectors, etc (see this[0] case
study).  In order to find a suitable memory.low value, we start by
determining the expected memory range within which the workload will be
comfortable operating.  This isn't an exact science -- memory usage deemed
"comfortable" will vary over time due to user behaviour, differences in
composition of work, etc, etc.  As such we need to ballpark memory.low,
but doing this is currently problematic:

1. If we end up setting it too low for the workload, it won't have
   *any* effect (see discussion above).  The group will receive the full
   weight of reclaim and won't have any priority while competing with the
   less important system software, as if we had no memory.low configured
   at all.

2. Because of this behaviour, we end up erring on the side of setting
   it too high, such that the comfort range is reliably covered.  However,
   protected memory is completely unavailable to the rest of the system,
   so we might cause undue memory and IO pressure there when we *know* we
   have some elasticity in the workload.

3. Even if we get the value totally right, smack in the middle of the
   comfort zone, we get extreme jumps between no pressure and full
   pressure that cause unpredictable pressure spikes in the workload due
   to the current binary reclaim behaviour.

With this patch, we can set it to our ballpark estimation without too much
worry.  Any undesirable behaviour, such as too much or too little reclaim
pressure on the workload or system will be proportional to how far our
estimation is off.  This means we can set memory.low much more
conservatively and thus waste less resources *without* the risk of the
workload falling off a cliff if we overshoot.

As a more abstract technical description, this unintuitive behaviour
results in having to give high-priority workloads a large protection
buffer on top of their expected usage to function reliably, as otherwise
we have abrupt periods of dramatically increased memory pressure which
hamper performance.  Having to set these thresholds so high wastes
resources and generally works against the principle of work conservation.
In addition, having proportional memory reclaim behaviour has other
benefits.  Most notably, before this patch it's basically mandatory to set
memory.low to a higher than desirable value because otherwise as soon as
you exceed memory.low, all protection is lost, and all pages are eligible
to scan again.  By contrast, having a gradual ramp in reclaim pressure
means that you now still get some protection when thresholds are exceeded,
which means that one can now be more comfortable setting memory.low to
lower values without worrying that all protection will be lost.  This is
important because workingset size is really hard to know exactly,
especially with variable workloads, so at least getting *some* protection
if your workingset size grows larger than you expect increases user
confidence in setting memory.low without a huge buffer on top being
needed.

Thanks a lot to Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo for their advice and
assistance in thinking about how to make this work better.

In testing these changes, I intended to verify that:

1. Changes in page scanning become gradual and proportional instead of
   binary.

   To test this, I experimented stepping further and further down
   memory.low protection on a workload that floats around 19G workingset
   when under memory.low protection, watching page scan rates for the
   workload cgroup:

   +------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+
   | memory.low | test (pgscan/s) | control (pgscan/s) | % of control |
   +------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+
   |        21G |               0 |                  0 | N/A          |
   |        17G |             867 |               3799 | 23%          |
   |        12G |            1203 |               3543 | 34%          |
   |         8G |            2534 |               3979 | 64%          |
   |         4G |            3980 |               4147 | 96%          |
   |          0 |            3799 |               3980 | 95%          |
   +------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+

   As you can see, the test kernel (with a kernel containing this
   patch) ramps up page scanning significantly more gradually than the
   control kernel (without this patch).

2. More gradual ramp up in reclaim aggression doesn't result in
   premature OOMs.

   To test this, I wrote a script that slowly increments the number of
   pages held by stress(1)'s --vm-keep mode until a production system
   entered severe overall memory contention.  This script runs in a highly
   protected slice taking up the majority of available system memory.
   Watching vmstat revealed that page scanning continued essentially
   nominally between test and control, without causing forward reclaim
   progress to become arrested.

[0]: https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/cgroup2/docs/overview.html#case-study-the-fbtax2-project

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: reflow block comments to fit in 80 cols]
[chris@chrisdown.name: handle cgroup_disable=memory when getting memcg protection]
  Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201045711.GA18302@chrisdown.name
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190124014455.GA6396@chrisdown.nameSigned-off-by: NChris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Acked-by: NJohannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reviewed-by: NRoman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      9783aa99