Re: [Experimental][PATCH] putback_lru_page rework

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:45:22 -0400
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 09:22 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:21:06 -0400
> > Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 18:40 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > Lee-san, how about this ?
> > > > Tested on x86-64 and tried Nisimura-san's test at el. works good now.
> > > 
> > > I have been testing with my work load on both ia64 and x86_64 and it
> > > seems to be working well.  I'll let them run for a day or so.
> > > 
> > thank you.
> > <snip>
> 
> Update:
> 
> On x86_64 [32GB, 4xdual-core Opteron], my work load has run for ~20:40
> hours.  Still running.
> 
> On ia64 [32G, 16cpu, 4 node], the system started going into softlockup
> after ~7 hours.  Stack trace [below] indicates zone-lru lock in
> __page_cache_release() called from put_page().  Either heavy contention
> or failure to unlock.  Note that previous run, with patches to
> putback_lru_page() and unmap_and_move(), the same load ran for ~18 hours
> before I shut it down to try these patches.
> 

On ia64, ia64_spinlock_contention() enables irq and soft-lockup detection
by irq works well. On x86-64, irq is not enabled during spin-wait, and
soft-lockup detection irq cannot be handled until irq is enabled.
Then, it seems there is someone who drops into infinite-loop within
spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags)....

Then, "A" cpu doesn't report soft-lockup while others report ?

Hmm..

-Kame



> I'm going to try again with the collected patches posted by Kosaki-san
> [for which, Thanks!].  If it occurs again, I'll deconfig the unevictable
> lru feature and see if I can reproduce it there.  It may be unrelated to
> the unevictable lru patches.
> 
> > 
> > > > @@ -240,6 +232,9 @@ static int __munlock_pte_handler(pte_t *
> > > >  	struct page *page;
> > > >  	pte_t pte;
> > > >  
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * page is never be unmapped by page-reclaim. we lock this page now.
> > > > +	 */
> > > 
> > > I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  That is, what the
> > > point of this comment is...
> > > 
> > We access the page-table without taking pte_lock. But this vm is MLOCKED
> > and migration-race is handled. So we don't need to be too nervous to access
> > the pte. I'll consider more meaningful words.
> 
> OK, so you just want to note that we're accessing the pte w/o locking
> and that this is safe because the vma has been VM_LOCKED and all pages
> should be mlocked?  
> 
> I'll note that the vma is NOT VM_LOCKED during the pte walk.
> munlock_vma_pages_range() resets it so that try_to_unlock(), called from
> munlock_vma_page(), won't try to re-mlock the page.  However, we hold
> the mmap sem for write, so faults are held off--no need to worry about a
> COW fault occurring between when the VM_LOCKED was cleared and before
> the page is munlocked.  If that could occur, it could open a window
> where a non-mlocked page is mapped in this vma, and page reclaim could
> potentially unmap the page.  Shouldn't be an issue as long as we never
> downgrade the semaphore to read during munlock.
> 
> Lee
> 
> ----------
> softlockup stack trace for "usex" workload on ia64:
> 
> BUG: soft lockup - CPU#13 stuck for 61s! [usex:124359]
> Modules linked in: ipv6 sunrpc dm_mirror dm_log dm_multipath scsi_dh dm_mod pci_slot fan dock thermal sg sr_mod processor button container ehci_hcd ohci_hcd uhci_hcd usbcore
> 
> Pid: 124359, CPU 13, comm:                 usex
> psr : 00001010085a6010 ifs : 8000000000000000 ip  : [<a00000010000a1a0>]    Tainted: G      D   (2.6.26-rc5-mm3-kame-rework+mcl_inherit)
> ip is at ia64_spinlock_contention+0x20/0x60
> unat: 0000000000000000 pfs : 0000000000000081 rsc : 0000000000000003
> rnat: 0000000000000000 bsps: 0000000000000000 pr  : a65955959a96e969
> ldrs: 0000000000000000 ccv : 0000000000000000 fpsr: 0009804c8a70033f
> csd : 0000000000000000 ssd : 0000000000000000
> b0  : a0000001001264a0 b6  : a0000001006f0350 b7  : a00000010000b940
> f6  : 0ffff8000000000000000 f7  : 1003ecf3cf3cf3cf3cf3d
> f8  : 1003e0000000000000001 f9  : 1003e0000000000000015
> f10 : 1003e000003a82aaab1fb f11 : 1003e0000000000000000
> r1  : a000000100c03650 r2  : 000000000000038a r3  : 0000000000000001
> r8  : 00000010085a6010 r9  : 0000000000080028 r10 : 000000000000000b
> r11 : 0000000000000a80 r12 : e0000741aaac7d50 r13 : e0000741aaac0000
> r14 : 0000000000000000 r15 : a000400741329148 r16 : e000074000060100
> r17 : e000076000078e98 r18 : 0000000000000015 r19 : 0000000000000018
> r20 : 0000000000000003 r21 : 0000000000000002 r22 : e000076000078e88
> r23 : e000076000078e80 r24 : 0000000000000001 r25 : 0240000000080028
> r26 : ffffffffffff04d8 r27 : 00000010085a6010 r28 : 7fe3382473f8b380
> r29 : 9c00000000000000 r30 : 0000000000000001 r31 : e000074000061400
> 
> Call Trace:
>  [<a000000100015e00>] show_stack+0x80/0xa0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac79b0 bsp=e0000741aaac1528
>  [<a000000100016700>] show_regs+0x880/0x8c0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac14d0
>  [<a0000001000fbbe0>] softlockup_tick+0x2e0/0x340
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac1480
>  [<a0000001000a9400>] run_local_timers+0x40/0x60
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac1468
>  [<a0000001000a9460>] update_process_times+0x40/0xc0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac1438
>  [<a00000010003ded0>] timer_interrupt+0x1b0/0x4a0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac13d0
>  [<a0000001000fc480>] handle_IRQ_event+0x80/0x120
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac1398
>  [<a0000001000fc660>] __do_IRQ+0x140/0x440
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac1338
>  [<a0000001000136d0>] ia64_handle_irq+0x3f0/0x420
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac12c0
>  [<a00000010000c120>] ia64_native_leave_kernel+0x0/0x270
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7b80 bsp=e0000741aaac12c0
>  [<a00000010000a1a0>] ia64_spinlock_contention+0x20/0x60
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7d50 bsp=e0000741aaac12c0
>  [<a0000001006f0350>] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x60
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7d50 bsp=e0000741aaac12b8
> 
> Probably zone lru_lock in __page_cache_release().
> 
>  [<a0000001001264a0>] put_page+0x100/0x300
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7d50 bsp=e0000741aaac1280
>  [<a000000100157170>] free_page_and_swap_cache+0x70/0xe0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7d50 bsp=e0000741aaac1260
>  [<a000000100145a10>] exit_mmap+0x3b0/0x580
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7d50 bsp=e0000741aaac1210
>  [<a00000010008b420>] mmput+0x80/0x1c0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e10 bsp=e0000741aaac11d8
> 
> NOTE:  all cpus show similar stack traces above here.  Some, however, get
> here from do_exit()/exit_mm(), rather than via execve().
> 
>  [<a00000010019c2c0>] flush_old_exec+0x5a0/0x1520
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e10 bsp=e0000741aaac10f0
>  [<a000000100213080>] load_elf_binary+0x7e0/0x2600
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e20 bsp=e0000741aaac0fb8
>  [<a00000010019b7a0>] search_binary_handler+0x1a0/0x520
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e20 bsp=e0000741aaac0f30
>  [<a00000010019e4e0>] do_execve+0x320/0x3e0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e20 bsp=e0000741aaac0ed0
>  [<a000000100014d00>] sys_execve+0x60/0xc0
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e30 bsp=e0000741aaac0e98
>  [<a00000010000b690>] ia64_execve+0x30/0x140
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e30 bsp=e0000741aaac0e48
>  [<a00000010000bfa0>] ia64_ret_from_syscall+0x0/0x20
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac7e30 bsp=e0000741aaac0e48
>  [<a000000000010720>] __start_ivt_text+0xffffffff00010720/0x400
>                                 sp=e0000741aaac8000 bsp=e0000741aaac0e48
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
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/