Message ID | 1684143495-12872-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [Resend,PATCHv2] mm: skip CMA pages when they are not available | expand |
any comments? On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 5:40 PM zhaoyang.huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> wrote: > > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> > > This patch fixes unproductive reclaiming of CMA pages by skipping them when they > are not available for current context. It is arise from bellowing OOM issue, which > caused by large proportion of MIGRATE_CMA pages among free pages. There has been > commit(168676649) to fix it by trying CMA pages first instead of fallback in > rmqueue. I would like to propose another one from reclaiming perspective. > > 04166 < 4> [ 36.172486] [03-19 10:05:52.172] ActivityManager: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0xc00(GFP_NOIO), nodemask=(null),cpuset=foreground,mems_allowed=0 > 0419C < 4> [ 36.189447] [03-19 10:05:52.189] DMA32: 0*4kB 447*8kB (C) 217*16kB (C) 124*32kB (C) 136*64kB (C) 70*128kB (C) 22*256kB (C) 3*512kB (C) 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 35848kB > 0419D < 4> [ 36.193125] [03-19 10:05:52.193] Normal: 231*4kB (UMEH) 49*8kB (MEH) 14*16kB (H) 13*32kB (H) 8*64kB (H) 2*128kB (H) 0*256kB 1*512kB (H) 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 3236kB > ...... > 041EA < 4> [ 36.234447] [03-19 10:05:52.234] SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1, gfp=0xa20(GFP_ATOMIC) > 041EB < 4> [ 36.234455] [03-19 10:05:52.234] cache: ext4_io_end, object size: 64, buffer size: 64, default order: 0, min order: 0 > 041EC < 4> [ 36.234459] [03-19 10:05:52.234] node 0: slabs: 53,objs: 3392, free: 0 > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> > --- > v2: update commit message and fix build error when CONFIG_CMA is not set > --- > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index bd6637f..19fb445 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -2225,10 +2225,16 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > unsigned long nr_skipped[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0, }; > unsigned long skipped = 0; > unsigned long scan, total_scan, nr_pages; > + bool cma_cap = true; > + struct page *page; > LIST_HEAD(folios_skipped); > > total_scan = 0; > scan = 0; > + if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA)) && !current_is_kswapd() > + && (gfp_migratetype(sc->gfp_mask) != MIGRATE_MOVABLE)) > + cma_cap = false; > + > while (scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src)) { > struct list_head *move_to = src; > struct folio *folio; > @@ -2239,12 +2245,17 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio); > total_scan += nr_pages; > > - if (folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) { > + page = &folio->page; > + > + if ((folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA > + || (get_pageblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_CMA && !cma_cap) > +#endif > + ) { > nr_skipped[folio_zonenum(folio)] += nr_pages; > move_to = &folios_skipped; > goto move; > } > - > /* > * Do not count skipped folios because that makes the function > * return with no isolated folios if the LRU mostly contains > -- > 1.9.1 >
On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:41:41 +0800 Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> wrote: > any comments? Have any of the regular CMA developers commented on a version of this? I have a couple of little complaints: > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index bd6637f..19fb445 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -2225,10 +2225,16 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > unsigned long nr_skipped[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0, }; > unsigned long skipped = 0; > unsigned long scan, total_scan, nr_pages; > + bool cma_cap = true; > + struct page *page; > LIST_HEAD(folios_skipped); > > total_scan = 0; > scan = 0; > + if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA)) && !current_is_kswapd() > + && (gfp_migratetype(sc->gfp_mask) != MIGRATE_MOVABLE)) > + cma_cap = false; > + A code comment above this alteration would be good. Tell the reader why we're doing this. > while (scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src)) { > struct list_head *move_to = src; > struct folio *folio; > @@ -2239,12 +2245,17 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio); > total_scan += nr_pages; > > - if (folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) { > + page = &folio->page; > + > + if ((folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA > + || (get_pageblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_CMA && !cma_cap) > +#endif > + ) { > nr_skipped[folio_zonenum(folio)] += nr_pages; > move_to = &folios_skipped; > goto move; > } That's pretty ugly. Can we use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) here to avoid the ifdef?
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 5:58 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:41:41 +0800 Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> wrote: > > > any comments? > > Have any of the regular CMA developers commented on a version of this? None comments until now. IMO, it is mainly affect reclaiming process. > > > I have a couple of little complaints: > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index bd6637f..19fb445 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -2225,10 +2225,16 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > > unsigned long nr_skipped[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0, }; > > unsigned long skipped = 0; > > unsigned long scan, total_scan, nr_pages; > > + bool cma_cap = true; > > + struct page *page; > > LIST_HEAD(folios_skipped); > > > > total_scan = 0; > > scan = 0; > > + if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA)) && !current_is_kswapd() > > + && (gfp_migratetype(sc->gfp_mask) != MIGRATE_MOVABLE)) > > + cma_cap = false; > > + > > A code comment above this alteration would be good. Tell the reader > why we're doing this. ok, will update > > > > while (scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src)) { > > struct list_head *move_to = src; > > struct folio *folio; > > @@ -2239,12 +2245,17 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > > nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio); > > total_scan += nr_pages; > > > > - if (folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) { > > + page = &folio->page; > > + > > + if ((folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA > > + || (get_pageblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_CMA && !cma_cap) > > +#endif > > + ) { > > nr_skipped[folio_zonenum(folio)] += nr_pages; > > move_to = &folios_skipped; > > goto move; > > } > > That's pretty ugly. Can we use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) here to avoid > the ifdef? ok >
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index bd6637f..19fb445 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2225,10 +2225,16 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, unsigned long nr_skipped[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0, }; unsigned long skipped = 0; unsigned long scan, total_scan, nr_pages; + bool cma_cap = true; + struct page *page; LIST_HEAD(folios_skipped); total_scan = 0; scan = 0; + if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA)) && !current_is_kswapd() + && (gfp_migratetype(sc->gfp_mask) != MIGRATE_MOVABLE)) + cma_cap = false; + while (scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src)) { struct list_head *move_to = src; struct folio *folio; @@ -2239,12 +2245,17 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio); total_scan += nr_pages; - if (folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) { + page = &folio->page; + + if ((folio_zonenum(folio) > sc->reclaim_idx) +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA + || (get_pageblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_CMA && !cma_cap) +#endif + ) { nr_skipped[folio_zonenum(folio)] += nr_pages; move_to = &folios_skipped; goto move; } - /* * Do not count skipped folios because that makes the function * return with no isolated folios if the LRU mostly contains