Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/vmscan: Throttle reclaim when no progress is being made

From: Darrick J. Wong
Date: Tue Nov 23 2021 - 20:49:19 EST

Next message: Casey Schaufler: "[PATCH v30 05/28] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs"
Previous message: Casey Schaufler: "[PATCH v30 04/28] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings"
In reply to: Darrick J. Wong: "Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/vmscan: Throttle reclaim when no progress is being made"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 05:19:12PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 03:46:46PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Memcg reclaim throttles on congestion if no reclaim progress is made.
> > This makes little sense, it might be due to writeback or a host of
> > other factors.
> >
> > For !memcg reclaim, it's messy. Direct reclaim primarily is throttled
> > in the page allocator if it is failing to make progress. Kswapd
> > throttles if too many pages are under writeback and marked for
> > immediate reclaim.
> >
> > This patch explicitly throttles if reclaim is failing to make progress.
>
> Hi Mel,
>
> Ever since Christoph broke swapfiles, I've been carrying around a little
> fstest in my dev tree[1] that tries to exercise paging things in and out
> of a swapfile. Sadly I've been trapped in about three dozen customer
> escalations for over a month, which means I haven't been able to do much
> upstream in weeks. Like submit this test upstream. :(
>
> Now that I've finally gotten around to trying out a 5.16-rc2 build, I
> notice that the runtime of this test has gone from ~5s to 2 hours.
> Among other things that it does, the test sets up a cgroup with a memory
> controller limiting the memory usage to 25MB, then runs a program that
> tries to dirty 50MB of memory. There's 2GB of memory in the VM, so
> we're not running reclaim globally, but the cgroup gets throttled very
> severely.
>
> AFAICT the system is mostly idle, but it's difficult to tell because ps
> and top also get stuck waiting for this cgroup for whatever reason. My
> uninformed spculation is that usemem_and_swapoff takes a page fault
> while dirtying the 50MB memory buffer, prepares to pull a page in from
> swap, tries to evict another page to stay under the memcg limit, but
> that decides that it's making no progress and calls
> reclaim_throttle(..., VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS).
>
> The sleep is uninterruptible, so I can't even kill -9 fstests to shut it
> down. Eventually we either finish the test or (for the mlock part) the
> OOM killer actually kills the process, but this takes a very long time.
>
> Any thoughts? For now I can just hack around this by skipping
> reclaim_throttle if cgroup_reclaim() == true, but that's probably not
> the correct fix. :)

Update: after adding timing information to usemem_and_swapoff, it looks
like dirtying the 50MB buffer takes ~22s (up from 0.06s on 5.15). The
mlock call stalls for ~280s until the OOM killer kills it (up from
nearly instantaneous on 5.15), and the swapon/swapoff variant takes
20 minutes to hours depending on the run.

--D

> --D
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfstests-dev.git/commit/?h=test-swapfile-io&id=0d0ad843cea366d0ab0a7d8d984e5cd1deba5b43
>
> >
> > [vbabka@xxxxxxx: Remove redundant code]
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/mmzone.h | 1 +
> > include/trace/events/vmscan.h | 4 +++-
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +---------
> > mm/vmscan.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > index 9ccd8d95291b..00e305cfb3ec 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > @@ -276,6 +276,7 @@ enum lru_list {
> > enum vmscan_throttle_state {
> > VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK,
> > VMSCAN_THROTTLE_ISOLATED,
> > + VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS,
> > NR_VMSCAN_THROTTLE,
> > };
> >
> > diff --git a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
> > index d4905bd9e9c4..f25a6149d3ba 100644
> > --- a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
> > @@ -29,11 +29,13 @@
> >
> > #define _VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK (1 << VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK)
> > #define _VMSCAN_THROTTLE_ISOLATED (1 << VMSCAN_THROTTLE_ISOLATED)
> > +#define _VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS (1 << VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS)
> >
> > #define show_throttle_flags(flags) \
> > (flags) ? __print_flags(flags, "|", \
> > {_VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK, "VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK"}, \
> > - {_VMSCAN_THROTTLE_ISOLATED, "VMSCAN_THROTTLE_ISOLATED"} \
> > + {_VMSCAN_THROTTLE_ISOLATED, "VMSCAN_THROTTLE_ISOLATED"}, \
> > + {_VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS, "VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS"} \
> > ) : "VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NONE"
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 6da5020a8656..8b33152c9b85 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -3465,19 +3465,11 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >
> > /* try to free all pages in this cgroup */
> > while (nr_retries && page_counter_read(&memcg->memory)) {
> > - int progress;
> > -
> > if (signal_pending(current))
> > return -EINTR;
> >
> > - progress = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, 1,
> > - GFP_KERNEL, true);
> > - if (!progress) {
> > + if (!try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, 1, GFP_KERNEL, true))
> > nr_retries--;
> > - /* maybe some writeback is necessary */
> > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > - }
> > -
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 1e54e636b927..0450f6867d61 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -3323,6 +3323,33 @@ static inline bool compaction_ready(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> > return zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, 0, watermark, sc->reclaim_idx);
> > }
> >
> > +static void consider_reclaim_throttle(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> > +{
> > + /* If reclaim is making progress, wake any throttled tasks. */
> > + if (sc->nr_reclaimed) {
> > + wait_queue_head_t *wqh;
> > +
> > + wqh = &pgdat->reclaim_wait[VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS];
> > + if (waitqueue_active(wqh))
> > + wake_up(wqh);
> > +
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Do not throttle kswapd on NOPROGRESS as it will throttle on
> > + * VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK if there are too many pages under
> > + * writeback and marked for immediate reclaim at the tail of
> > + * the LRU.
> > + */
> > + if (current_is_kswapd())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* Throttle if making no progress at high prioities. */
> > + if (sc->priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> > + reclaim_throttle(pgdat, VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS, HZ/10);
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * This is the direct reclaim path, for page-allocating processes. We only
> > * try to reclaim pages from zones which will satisfy the caller's allocation
> > @@ -3407,6 +3434,7 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, struct scan_control *sc)
> > continue;
> > last_pgdat = zone->zone_pgdat;
> > shrink_node(zone->zone_pgdat, sc);
> > + consider_reclaim_throttle(zone->zone_pgdat, sc);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >

Next message: Casey Schaufler: "[PATCH v30 05/28] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs"
Previous message: Casey Schaufler: "[PATCH v30 04/28] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings"
In reply to: Darrick J. Wong: "Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/vmscan: Throttle reclaim when no progress is being made"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]