[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded?
On 7/1/19 1:59 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:20:42AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 4/24/19 7:35 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 4/23/19 6:39 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>>> That being said, I do not think __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is wrong here. It
>>>>> looks like there is something wrong in the reclaim going on.
>>>> Ok, I will start digging into that. Just wanted to make sure before I got
>>>> into it too deep.
>>>> BTW - This is very easy to reproduce. Just try to allocate more huge pages
>>>> than will fit into memory. I see this 'reclaim taking forever' behavior on
>>>> v5.1-rc5-mmotm-2019-04-19-14-53. Looks like it was there in v5.0 as well.
>>> I'd suspect this in should_continue_reclaim():
>>> /* Consider stopping depending on scan and reclaim activity */
>>> if (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL) {
>>> /*
>>> * For __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL allocations, stop reclaiming if the
>>> * full LRU list has been scanned and we are still failing
>>> * to reclaim pages. This full LRU scan is potentially
>>> * expensive but a __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL caller really wants to succeed
>>> */
>>> if (!nr_reclaimed && !nr_scanned)
>>> return false;
>>> And that for some reason, nr_scanned never becomes zero. But it's hard
>>> to figure out through all the layers of functions :/
>> I got back to looking into the direct reclaim/compaction stalls when
>> trying to allocate huge pages. As previously mentioned, the code is
>> looping for a long time in shrink_node(). The routine
>> should_continue_reclaim() returns true perhaps more often than it should.
>> As Vlastmil guessed, my debug code output below shows nr_scanned is remaining
>> non-zero for quite a while. This was on v5.2-rc6.
> I think it would be reasonable to have should_continue_reclaim allow an
> exit if scanning at higher priority than DEF_PRIORITY - 2, nr_scanned is
> less than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX and no pages are being reclaimed.

Thanks Mel,

I added such a check to should_continue_reclaim. However, it does not
address the issue I am seeing. In that do-while loop in shrink_node,
the scan priority is not raised (priority--). We can enter the loop
with priority == DEF_PRIORITY and continue to loop for minutes as seen
in my previous debug output.

Mike Kravetz

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-02 05:16    [W:0.086 / U:4.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site