Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1684017 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-07-10 09:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2017-07-10 15:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2017-07-10 16:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2017-07-10 19:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-07-10 19:20 +0200

#1684017 — [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Tetsuo Handa has reported [1][2][3]that direct reclaimers might get stuck
in too_many_isolated loop basically for ever because the last few pages
on the LRU lists are isolated by the kswapd which is stuck on fs locks
when doing the pageout or slab reclaim. This in turn means that there is
nobody to actually trigger the oom killer and the system is basically
unusable.

too_many_isolated has been introduced by 35cd78156c49 ("vmscan: throttle
direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already") to prevent
from pre-mature oom killer invocations because back then no reclaim
progress could indeed trigger the OOM killer too early. But since the
oom detection rework 0a0337e0d1d1 ("mm, oom: rework oom detection")
the allocation/reclaim retry loop considers all the reclaimable pages
and throttles the allocation at that layer so we can loosen the direct
reclaim throttling.

Make shrink_inactive_list loop over too_many_isolated bounded and returns
immediately when the situation hasn't resolved after the first sleep.
Replace congestion_wait by a simple schedule_timeout_interruptible because
we are not really waiting on the IO congestion in this path.

Please note that this patch can theoretically cause the OOM killer to
trigger earlier while there are many pages isolated for the reclaim
which makes progress only very slowly. This would be obvious from the oom
report as the number of isolated pages are printed there. If we ever hit
this should_reclaim_retry should consider those numbers in the evaluation
in one way or another.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602092349.ACG81273.OSVtMJQHLOFOFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201702212335.DJB30777.JOFMHSFtVLQOOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
[3] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201706300914.CEH95859.FMQOLVFHJFtOOS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Tested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
Hi,
I am resubmitting this patch previously sent here
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170307133057.26182-1-mhocko@kernel.org.

Johannes and Rik had some concerns that this could lead to premature
OOM kills. I agree with them that we need a better throttling
mechanism. Until now we didn't give the issue described above a high
priority because it usually required a really insane workload to
trigger. But it seems that the issue can be reproduced also without
having an insane number of competing threads [3].

Moreover, the issue also triggers very often while testing heavy memory
pressure and so prevents further development of hardening of that area
(http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201707061948.ICJ18763.tVFOQFOHMJFSLO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp).
Tetsuo hasn't seen any negative effect of this patch in his oom stress
tests so I think we should go with this simple patch for now and think
about something more robust long term.

That being said I suggest merging this (after spending the full release
cycle in linux-next) for the time being until we come up with a more
clever solution.

 mm/vmscan.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index c15b2e4c47ca..4ae069060ae5 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1713,9 +1713,15 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
 	int file = is_file_lru(lru);
 	struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
 	struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = &lruvec->reclaim_stat;
+	bool stalled = false;
 
 	while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(pgdat, file, sc))) {
-		congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
+		if (stalled)
+			return 0;
+
+		/* wait a bit for the reclaimer. */
+		schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ/10);
+		stalled = true;
 
 		/* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
 		if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
-- 
2.11.0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1684226

On 07/10/2017 09:48 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> 
> Tetsuo Handa has reported [1][2][3]that direct reclaimers might get stuck
> in too_many_isolated loop basically for ever because the last few pages
> on the LRU lists are isolated by the kswapd which is stuck on fs locks
> when doing the pageout or slab reclaim. This in turn means that there is
> nobody to actually trigger the oom killer and the system is basically
> unusable.
> 
> too_many_isolated has been introduced by 35cd78156c49 ("vmscan: throttle
> direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already") to prevent
> from pre-mature oom killer invocations because back then no reclaim
> progress could indeed trigger the OOM killer too early. But since the
> oom detection rework 0a0337e0d1d1 ("mm, oom: rework oom detection")
> the allocation/reclaim retry loop considers all the reclaimable pages
> and throttles the allocation at that layer so we can loosen the direct
> reclaim throttling.
> 
> Make shrink_inactive_list loop over too_many_isolated bounded and returns
> immediately when the situation hasn't resolved after the first sleep.
> Replace congestion_wait by a simple schedule_timeout_interruptible because
> we are not really waiting on the IO congestion in this path.
> 
> Please note that this patch can theoretically cause the OOM killer to
> trigger earlier while there are many pages isolated for the reclaim
> which makes progress only very slowly. This would be obvious from the oom
> report as the number of isolated pages are printed there. If we ever hit
> this should_reclaim_retry should consider those numbers in the evaluation
> in one way or another.
> 
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201602092349.ACG81273.OSVtMJQHLOFOFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201702212335.DJB30777.JOFMHSFtVLQOOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> [3] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201706300914.CEH95859.FMQOLVFHJFtOOS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> 
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Tested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Let's hope there won't be premature OOM's then.

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1684260

On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 09:48 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

> Johannes and Rik had some concerns that this could lead to premature
> OOM kills. I agree with them that we need a better throttling
> mechanism. Until now we didn't give the issue described above a high
> priority because it usually required a really insane workload to
> trigger. But it seems that the issue can be reproduced also without
> having an insane number of competing threads [3].

My worries stand, but lets fix the real observed bug, and not worry
too much about the theoretical bug for now.

Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1684416

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:58:03AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 09:48 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > Johannes and Rik had some concerns that this could lead to premature
> > OOM kills. I agree with them that we need a better throttling
> > mechanism. Until now we didn't give the issue described above a high
> > priority because it usually required a really insane workload to
> > trigger. But it seems that the issue can be reproduced also without
> > having an insane number of competing threads [3].
> 
> My worries stand, but lets fix the real observed bug, and not worry
> too much about the theoretical bug for now.
> 
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>

I agree with this.

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1684465

On Mon 10-07-17 12:58:59, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:58:03AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 09:48 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 
> > > Johannes and Rik had some concerns that this could lead to premature
> > > OOM kills. I agree with them that we need a better throttling
> > > mechanism. Until now we didn't give the issue described above a high
> > > priority because it usually required a really insane workload to
> > > trigger. But it seems that the issue can be reproduced also without
> > > having an insane number of competing threads [3].
> > 
> > My worries stand, but lets fix the real observed bug, and not worry
> > too much about the theoretical bug for now.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>

Thanks to both of you. Just to make it clear. I really do want to
address the throttling problem longterm properly. I do not have any
great ideas to be honest.  I am busy with other things so it might be
quite some time before I come up with something.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web