Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:25:53 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] fold per-CPU vmstats remotely
Message-ID: <ZBBn0evSQeuiNna4@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230313162507.032200398@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230313162507.032200398@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 13-03-23 13:25:07, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> This patch series addresses the following two problems:
> 
>     1. A customer provided some evidence which indicates that
>        the idle tick was stopped; albeit, CPU-specific vmstat
>        counters still remained populated.
> 
>        Thus one can only assume quiet_vmstat() was not
>        invoked on return to the idle loop. If I understand
>        correctly, I suspect this divergence might erroneously
>        prevent a reclaim attempt by kswapd. If the number of
>        zone specific free pages are below their per-cpu drift
>        value then zone_page_state_snapshot() is used to
>        compute a more accurate view of the aforementioned
>        statistic.  Thus any task blocked on the NUMA node
>        specific pfmemalloc_wait queue will be unable to make
>        significant progress via direct reclaim unless it is
>        killed after being woken up by kswapd
>        (see throttle_direct_reclaim())

I have hard time to follow the actual problem described above. Are you
suggesting that a lack of pcp vmstat counters update has led to
reclaim issues? What is the said "evidence"? Could you share more of the
story please?

>     2. With a SCHED_FIFO task that busy loops on a given CPU,
>        and kworker for that CPU at SCHED_OTHER priority,
>        queuing work to sync per-vmstats will either cause that
>        work to never execute, or stalld (i.e. stall daemon)
>        boosts kworker priority which causes a latency
>        violation

Why is that a problem? Out-of-sync stats shouldn't cause major problems.
Or can they?

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs