Re: [PATCH 07/34] mm, vmscan: make kswapd reclaim in terms of nodes

From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed Aug 31 2016 - 07:09:45 EST

On Wed 31-08-16 09:49:42, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:39:59AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > This indeed fixes the problem.
> > Please add my
> > Tested-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Ok, thanks. Unfortunately we cannot do a wide conversion like this
> because some users of populated_zone() really meant to check for
> present_pages. In all cases, the expectation was that reserved pages
> would be tiny but fadump messes that up. Can you verify this also works
> please?
> ---8<---
> mm, vmscan: Only allocate and reclaim from zones with pages managed by the buddy allocator
> Firmware Assisted Dump (FA_DUMP) on ppc64 reserves substantial amounts
> of memory when booting a secondary kernel. Srikar Dronamraju reported that
> multiple nodes may have no memory managed by the buddy allocator but still
> return true for populated_zone().
> Commit 1d82de618ddd ("mm, vmscan: make kswapd reclaim in terms of nodes")
> was reported to cause kswapd to spin at 100% CPU usage when fadump was
> enabled. The old code happened to deal with the situation of a populated
> node with zero free pages by co-incidence but the current code tries to
> reclaim populated zones without realising that is impossible.
> We cannot just convert populated_zone() as many existing users really
> need to check for present_pages. This patch introduces a managed_zone()
> helper and uses it in the few cases where it is critical that the check
> is made for managed pages -- zonelist constuction and page reclaim.

OK, the patch makes sense to me. I am not happy about two very similar
functions, to be honest though. managed vs. present checks will be quite
subtle and it is not entirely clear when to use which one. I agree that
the reclaim path is the most critical one so the patch seems OK to me.
At least from a quick glance it should help with the reported issue so
feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>

I expect we might want to turn other places as well but they are far
from critical. I would appreciate some lead there and stick a clarifying

> -static inline int populated_zone(struct zone *zone)
> +/* Returns true if a zone has pages managed by the buddy allocator */

* Returns true if a zone has pages managed by the buddy allocator.
* All the reclaim decisions have to use this function rather than
* populated_zone(). If the whole zone is reserved then we can easily
* end up with populated_zone() && !managed_zone().

What do you think?

> +static inline bool managed_zone(struct zone *zone)
> {
> - return (!!zone->present_pages);
> + return zone->managed_pages;
> +}
> +
> +/* Returns true if a zone has memory */
> +static inline bool populated_zone(struct zone *zone)
> +{
> + return zone->present_pages;
> }
Michal Hocko