Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: vmscan: If kswapd has been running too long,allow it to sleep
From: Mel Gorman
Date: Mon May 16 2011 - 04:46:08 EST
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 19:27 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> (2011/05/13 23:03), Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> > Under constant allocation pressure, kswapd can be in the situation where
> >> > sleeping_prematurely() will always return true even if kswapd has been
> >> > running a long time. Check if kswapd needs to be scheduled.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++++
> >> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> > index af24d1e..4d24828 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> > @@ -2251,6 +2251,10 @@ static bool sleeping_prematurely(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
> >> > unsigned long balanced = 0;
> >> > bool all_zones_ok = true;
> >> >
> >> > + /* If kswapd has been running too long, just sleep */
> >> > + if (need_resched())
> >> > + return false;
> >> > +
> >> Hmm... I don't like this patch so much. because this code does
> >> - don't sleep if kswapd got context switch at shrink_inactive_list
> > This isn't entirely true: need_resched() will be false, so we'll follow
> > the normal path for determining whether to sleep or not, in effect
> > leaving the current behaviour unchanged.
> >> - sleep if kswapd didn't
> > This also isn't entirely true: whether need_resched() is true at this
> > point depends on a whole lot more that whether we did a context switch
> > in shrink_inactive. It mostly depends on how long we've been running
> > without giving up the CPU. Generally that will mean we've been round
> > the shrinker loop hundreds to thousands of times without sleeping.
> >> It seems to be semi random behavior.
> > Well, we have to do something. Chris Mason first suspected the hang was
> > a kswapd rescheduling problem a while ago. We tried putting
> > cond_rescheds() in several places in the vmscan code, but to no avail.
> Is it a result of test with patch of Hannes(ie, !pgdat_balanced)?
> If it isn't, it would be nop regardless of putting cond_reshed at vmscan.c.
> Because, although we complete zone balancing, kswapd doesn't sleep as
> pgdat_balance returns wrong result. And at last VM calls
> balance_pgdat. In this case, balance_pgdat returns without any work as
> kswap couldn't find zones which have not enough free pages and goto
> out. kswapd could repeat this work infinitely. So you don't have a
> chance to call cond_resched.
> But if your test was with Hanne's patch, I am very curious how come
> kswapd consumes CPU a lot.
> > The need_resched() in sleeping_prematurely() seems to be about the best
> > option. The other option might be just to put a cond_resched() in
> > kswapd_try_to_sleep(), but that will really have about the same effect.
> I don't oppose it but before that, I think we have to know why kswapd
> consumes CPU a lot although we applied Hannes' patch.
Because it's still possible for processes to allocate pages at the same
rate kswapd is freeing them leading to a situation where kswapd does not
consider the zone balanced for prolonged periods of time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/