| Message ID | 1427264236-17249-10-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
[Sorry for the late reply] On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:13, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The OOM killer connects random tasks in the system with unknown > dependencies between them, and the OOM victim might well get blocked > behind the task that is trying to allocate. That means that while > allocations can issue OOM kills to improve the low memory situation, > which generally frees more than they are going to take out, they can > not rely on their *own* OOM kills to make forward progress for them. > > Secondly, we want to avoid a racing allocation swooping in to steal > the work of the OOM killing allocation, causing spurious allocation > failures. The one that put in the work must have priority - if its > efforts are enough to serve both allocations that's fine, otherwise > concurrent allocations should be forced to issue their own OOM kills. > > Keep some pages below the min watermark reserved for OOM-killing > allocations to protect them from blocking victims and concurrent > allocations not pulling their weight. Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I am just not sure I am happy about some details. [...] > @@ -3274,6 +3290,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) > show_node(zone); > printk("%s" > " free:%lukB" > + " oom:%lukB" > " min:%lukB" > " low:%lukB" > " high:%lukB" > @@ -3306,6 +3323,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) > "\n", > zone->name, > K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES)), > + K(oom_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(min_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(low_wmark_pages(zone)), > K(high_wmark_pages(zone)), Do we really need to export the new watermark into the userspace? How would it help user/admin? OK, maybe show_free_areas could be helpful for oom reports but why to export it in /proc/zoneinfo which is done further down? > @@ -5747,17 +5765,18 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void) > > min_pages = zone->managed_pages / 1024; > min_pages = clamp(min_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, 128UL); > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = min_pages; > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = min_pages; > } else { > /* > * If it's a lowmem zone, reserve a number of pages > * proportionate to the zone's size. > */ > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = tmp; > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = tmp; > } > > - zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > - zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 3); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > + zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); This will basically elevate the min watermark, right? And that might lead to subtle performance differences even when OOM killer is not invoked because the direct reclaim will start sooner. Shouldn't we rather give WMARK_OOM half of WMARK_MIN instead? > > __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, > high_wmark_pages(zone) - low_wmark_pages(zone) - > diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c > index 1fd0886a389f..a62f16ef524c 100644 > --- a/mm/vmstat.c > +++ b/mm/vmstat.c > @@ -1188,6 +1188,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > seq_printf(m, "Node %d, zone %8s", pgdat->node_id, zone->name); > seq_printf(m, > "\n pages free %lu" > + "\n oom %lu" > "\n min %lu" > "\n low %lu" > "\n high %lu" > @@ -1196,6 +1197,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > "\n present %lu" > "\n managed %lu", > zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES), > + oom_wmark_pages(zone), > min_wmark_pages(zone), > low_wmark_pages(zone), > high_wmark_pages(zone), > -- > 2.3.3 >
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 06:49:40PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:13, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > @@ -5747,17 +5765,18 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void) > > > > min_pages = zone->managed_pages / 1024; > > min_pages = clamp(min_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, 128UL); > > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = min_pages; > > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = min_pages; > > } else { > > /* > > * If it's a lowmem zone, reserve a number of pages > > * proportionate to the zone's size. > > */ > > - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = tmp; > > + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = tmp; > > } > > > > - zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > > - zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); > > + zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 3); > > + zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); > > + zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); > > This will basically elevate the min watermark, right? And that might lead > to subtle performance differences even when OOM killer is not invoked > because the direct reclaim will start sooner. It will move the min watermark a bit closer to the kswapd watermarks, so I guess the risk of entering direct reclaim when kswapd won't wake up fast enough before concurrent allocator slowpaths deplete the zone from low to min is marginally increased. That seems like a farfetched worry, especially given that waking up a sleeping kswapd is not a high frequency event in the first place. > Shouldn't we rather give WMARK_OOM half of WMARK_MIN instead? I guess conceptually that would work as well, since an OOM killing task is technically reclaiming memory and this reserve is meant to help reclaiming tasks make forward progress. That being said, the separate OOM reserve was designed for when the allocation can actually fail: deplete our own little reserve before returning failure. But it looks like neither the low-order nor the GFP_NOFS deadlock fixes got any traction, and so right now all OOM killing allocations still have the potential to deadlock. Is there a reason we shouldn't just let them do an ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK allocation after the OOM victim exited (or timed out)? Otherwise, I'll just do that in the next iteration. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h index 218f89208e83..284a36c7c1ce 100644 --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h @@ -239,12 +239,14 @@ struct lruvec { typedef unsigned __bitwise__ isolate_mode_t; enum zone_watermarks { + WMARK_OOM, WMARK_MIN, WMARK_LOW, WMARK_HIGH, NR_WMARK }; +#define oom_wmark_pages(z) (z->watermark[WMARK_OOM]) #define min_wmark_pages(z) (z->watermark[WMARK_MIN]) #define low_wmark_pages(z) (z->watermark[WMARK_LOW]) #define high_wmark_pages(z) (z->watermark[WMARK_HIGH]) diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h index edaab69a9c35..f59f3711f26c 100644 --- a/mm/internal.h +++ b/mm/internal.h @@ -419,10 +419,11 @@ extern void set_pageblock_order(void); unsigned long reclaim_clean_pages_from_list(struct zone *zone, struct list_head *page_list); /* The ALLOC_WMARK bits are used as an index to zone->watermark */ +#define ALLOC_WMARK_OOM WMARK_OOM #define ALLOC_WMARK_MIN WMARK_MIN #define ALLOC_WMARK_LOW WMARK_LOW #define ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH WMARK_HIGH -#define ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS 0x04 /* don't check watermarks at all */ +#define ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS 0x08 /* don't check watermarks at all */ /* Mask to get the watermark bits */ #define ALLOC_WMARK_MASK (ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS-1) diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index 9ce9c4c083a0..3c165016175d 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -2390,6 +2390,22 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags, if (WARN_ON_ONCE(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) *did_some_progress = 1; } + + /* + * Allocate from the OOM killer reserves. + * + * For one, this prevents parallel allocations from stealing + * our work and cause us to fail the allocation prematurely. + * If our kill is not enough for both, a racing allocation + * should issue a kill on its own. + * + * We might also hold a lock or state that keeps the OOM kill + * from exiting. While allocations can use OOM kills to free + * memory, they can not necessarily rely on their *own* kills + * to make forward progress. + */ + alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_WMARK_MASK; + alloc_flags |= ALLOC_WMARK_OOM; out: mutex_unlock(&oom_lock); alloc: @@ -3274,6 +3290,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) show_node(zone); printk("%s" " free:%lukB" + " oom:%lukB" " min:%lukB" " low:%lukB" " high:%lukB" @@ -3306,6 +3323,7 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter) "\n", zone->name, K(zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES)), + K(oom_wmark_pages(zone)), K(min_wmark_pages(zone)), K(low_wmark_pages(zone)), K(high_wmark_pages(zone)), @@ -5747,17 +5765,18 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void) min_pages = zone->managed_pages / 1024; min_pages = clamp(min_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, 128UL); - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = min_pages; + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = min_pages; } else { /* * If it's a lowmem zone, reserve a number of pages * proportionate to the zone's size. */ - zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = tmp; + zone->watermark[WMARK_OOM] = tmp; } - zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); - zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); + zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 3); + zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2); + zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = oom_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1); __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, high_wmark_pages(zone) - low_wmark_pages(zone) - diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c index 1fd0886a389f..a62f16ef524c 100644 --- a/mm/vmstat.c +++ b/mm/vmstat.c @@ -1188,6 +1188,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, seq_printf(m, "Node %d, zone %8s", pgdat->node_id, zone->name); seq_printf(m, "\n pages free %lu" + "\n oom %lu" "\n min %lu" "\n low %lu" "\n high %lu" @@ -1196,6 +1197,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, "\n present %lu" "\n managed %lu", zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES), + oom_wmark_pages(zone), min_wmark_pages(zone), low_wmark_pages(zone), high_wmark_pages(zone),
The OOM killer connects random tasks in the system with unknown dependencies between them, and the OOM victim might well get blocked behind the task that is trying to allocate. That means that while allocations can issue OOM kills to improve the low memory situation, which generally frees more than they are going to take out, they can not rely on their *own* OOM kills to make forward progress for them. Secondly, we want to avoid a racing allocation swooping in to steal the work of the OOM killing allocation, causing spurious allocation failures. The one that put in the work must have priority - if its efforts are enough to serve both allocations that's fine, otherwise concurrent allocations should be forced to issue their own OOM kills. Keep some pages below the min watermark reserved for OOM-killing allocations to protect them from blocking victims and concurrent allocations not pulling their weight. Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> --- include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 ++ mm/internal.h | 3 ++- mm/page_alloc.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++---- mm/vmstat.c | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)