Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/vmscan: don't demote if there is not enough free memory in the lower memory tier

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 14-01-26 21:51:28, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2026年1月13日(火) 22:40 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > On Tue 13-01-26 17:14:53, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> > > On systems with multiple memory-tiers consisting of DRAM and CXL memory,
> > > the OOM killer is not invoked properly.
> > >
> > > Here's the command to reproduce:
> > >
> > > $ sudo swapoff -a
> > > $ stress-ng --oomable -v --memrate 20 --memrate-bytes 10G \
> > >     --memrate-rd-mbs 1 --memrate-wr-mbs 1
> > >
> > > The memory usage is the number of workers specified with the --memrate
> > > option multiplied by the buffer size specified with the --memrate-bytes
> > > option, so please adjust it so that it exceeds the total size of the
> > > installed DRAM and CXL memory.
> > >
> > > If swap is disabled, you can usually expect the OOM killer to terminate
> > > the stress-ng process when memory usage approaches the installed memory
> > > size.
> > >
> > > However, if multiple memory-tiers exist (multiple
> > > /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tier<N> directories exist) and
> > > /sys/kernel/mm/numa/demotion_enabled is true, the OOM killer will not be
> > > invoked and the system will become inoperable, regardless of whether MGLRU
> > > is enabled or not.
> > >
> > > This issue can be reproduced using NUMA emulation even on systems with
> > > only DRAM.  You can create two-fake memory-tiers by booting a single-node
> > > system with "numa=fake=2 numa_emulation.adistance=576,704" kernel
> > > parameters.
> > >
> > > The reason for this issue is that memory allocations do not directly
> > > trigger the oom-killer, assuming that if the target node has an underlying
> > > memory tier, it can always be reclaimed by demotion.
> >
> > Why don't we fall back to no demotion mode in this case? I mean we have
> > shrink_folio_list:
> >         if (!list_empty(&demote_folios)) {
> >                 /* Folios which weren't demoted go back on @folio_list */
> >                 list_splice_init(&demote_folios, folio_list);
> >
> >                 /*
> >                  * goto retry to reclaim the undemoted folios in folio_list if
> >                  * desired.
> >                  *
> >                  * Reclaiming directly from top tier nodes is not often desired
> >                  * due to it breaking the LRU ordering: in general memory
> >                  * should be reclaimed from lower tier nodes and demoted from
> >                  * top tier nodes.
> >                  *
> >                  * However, disabling reclaim from top tier nodes entirely
> >                  * would cause ooms in edge scenarios where lower tier memory
> >                  * is unreclaimable for whatever reason, eg memory being
> >                  * mlocked or too hot to reclaim. We can disable reclaim
> >                  * from top tier nodes in proactive reclaim though as that is
> >                  * not real memory pressure.
> >                  */
> >                 if (!sc->proactive) {
> >                         do_demote_pass = false;
> >                         goto retry;
> >                 }
> >         }
> >
> > to handle this situation no?
> 
> can_demote() is called from four places.
> I tried modifying the patch to change the behavior only when can_demote()
> is called from shrink_folio_list(), but the problem was not fixed
> (oom did not occur).
> 
> Similarly, changing the behavior of can_demote() when called from
> can_reclaim_anon_pages(), shrink_folio_list(), and can_age_anon_pages(),
> but not when called from get_swappiness(), did not fix the problem either
> (oom did not occur).
> 
> Conversely, changing the behavior only when called from get_swappiness(),
> but not changing the behavior of can_reclaim_anon_pages(),
> shrink_folio_list(), and can_age_anon_pages(), fixed the problem
> (oom did occur).
> 
> Therefore, it appears that the behavior of get_swappiness() is important
> in this issue.

You have said that there is no swap configured in the system, right?
That would imply that anonymous pages are not reclaimable at all (see
can_reclaim_anon_pages)?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs