Re: [PATCH v4] mm: don't be stuck to rmap lock on reclaim path

From: Johannes Weiner
Date: Tue May 10 2022 - 18:28:01 EST


On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:54:23PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote:
> The rmap locks(i_mmap_rwsem and anon_vma->root->rwsem) could be
> contended under memory pressure if processes keep working on
> their vmas(e.g., fork, mmap, munmap). It makes reclaim path
> stuck. In our real workload traces, we see kswapd is waiting the
> lock for 300ms+(worst case, a sec) and it makes other processes
> entering direct reclaim, which were also stuck on the lock.
>
> This patch makes lru aging path try_lock mode like shink_page_list
> so the reclaim context will keep working with next lru pages
> without being stuck. if it found the rmap lock contended, it rotates
> the page back to head of lru in both active/inactive lrus to make
> them consistent behavior, which is basic starting point rather than
> adding more heristic.
>
> Since this patch introduces a new "contended" field as out-param
> along with try_lock in-param in rmap_walk_control, it's not
> immutable any longer if the try_lock is set so remove const
> keywords on rmap related functions. Since rmap walking is already
> expensive operation, I doubt the const would help sizable benefit(
> And we didn't have it until 5.17).
>
> In a heavy app workload in Android, trace shows following statistics.
> It almost removes rmap lock contention from reclaim path.
>
> From Martin Liu
>
> Before:
>
> max_dur(ms) min_dur(ms) max-min(dur)ms avg_dur(ms) sum_dur(ms) count blocked_function
> 1632 0 1631 151.542173 31672 209 page_lock_anon_vma_read
> 601 0 601 145.544681 28817 198 rmap_walk_file
>
> After:
>
> max_dur(ms) min_dur(ms) max-min(dur)ms avg_dur(ms) sum_dur(ms) count blocked_function
> NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 0.0 NaN
> 0 0 0 0.127645 1 12 rmap_walk_file
>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>