Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753504Ab0GUNEs (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:04:48 -0400 Received: from f0.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.51.133]:45429 "EHLO cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751338Ab0GUNEq (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:04:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:04:35 +0200 From: Johannes Weiner To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , Christoph Hellwig , Wu Fengguang , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim Message-ID: <20100721130435.GH16031@cmpxchg.org> References: <1279545090-19169-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1279545090-19169-5-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100719221420.GA16031@cmpxchg.org> <20100720134555.GU13117@csn.ul.ie> <20100720220218.GE16031@cmpxchg.org> <20100721115250.GX13117@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100721115250.GX13117@csn.ul.ie> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 9431 Lines: 268 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:52:50PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:02:18AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > What > > I had in mind is the attached patch. It is not tested and hacked up > > rather quickly due to time constraints, sorry, but you should get the > > idea. I hope I did not miss anything fundamental. > > > > Note that since only kswapd enters pageout() anymore, everything > > depending on PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC in there is moot, since there are no sync > > cycles for kswapd. Just to mitigate the WTF-count on the patch :-) > > > > Anon page writeback can enter pageout. See > > static inline bool reclaim_can_writeback(struct scan_control *sc, > struct page *page) > { > return !page_is_file_cache(page) || current_is_kswapd(); > } > > So the logic still applies. Yeah, I noticed it only after looking at it again this morning. My bad, it got a bit late when I wrote it. > > @@ -643,12 +639,14 @@ static noinline_for_stack void free_page > > * shrink_page_list() returns the number of reclaimed pages > > */ > > static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list, > > - struct scan_control *sc, > > - enum pageout_io sync_writeback) > > + struct scan_control *sc, > > + enum pageout_io sync_writeback, > > + int *dirty_seen) > > { > > LIST_HEAD(ret_pages); > > LIST_HEAD(free_pages); > > int pgactivate = 0; > > + unsigned long nr_dirty = 0; > > unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0; > > > > cond_resched(); > > @@ -657,7 +655,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(st > > enum page_references references; > > struct address_space *mapping; > > struct page *page; > > - int may_enter_fs; > > + int may_pageout; > > > > cond_resched(); > > > > @@ -681,10 +679,15 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(st > > if (page_mapped(page) || PageSwapCache(page)) > > sc->nr_scanned++; > > > > - may_enter_fs = (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) || > > + /* > > + * To prevent stack overflows, only kswapd can enter > > + * the filesystem. Swap IO is always fine (for now). > > + */ > > + may_pageout = current_is_kswapd() || > > (PageSwapCache(page) && (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO)); > > > > We lost the __GFP_FS check and it's vaguely possible kswapd could call the > allocator with GFP_NOFS. While you check it before wait_on_page_writeback it > needs to be checked before calling pageout(). I toyed around with > creating a may_pageout that took everything into account but I couldn't > convince myself there was no holes or serious change in functionality. Yeah, I checked balance_pgdat(), saw GFP_KERNEL and went for it. But it's probably better to keep such dependencies out. > Ok, is this closer to what you had in mind? IMHO this is (almost) ready to get merged, so I am including the nitpicking comments :-) > ==== CUT HERE ==== > [PATCH] vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim > > When memory is under enough pressure, a process may enter direct > reclaim to free pages in the same manner kswapd does. If a dirty page is > encountered during the scan, this page is written to backing storage using > mapping->writepage. This can result in very deep call stacks, particularly > if the target storage or filesystem are complex. It has already been observed > on XFS that the stack overflows but the problem is not XFS-specific. > > This patch prevents direct reclaim writing back filesystem pages by checking > if current is kswapd or the page is anonymous before writing back. If the > dirty pages cannot be written back, they are placed back on the LRU lists > for either background writing by the BDI threads or kswapd. If in direct > lumpy reclaim and dirty pages are encountered, the process will stall for > the background flusher before trying to reclaim the pages again. > > As the call-chain for writing anonymous pages is not expected to be deep > and they are not cleaned by flusher threads, anonymous pages are still > written back in direct reclaim. > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > Acked-by: Rik van Riel > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 6587155..e3a5816 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c [...] Does factoring pageout() still make sense in this patch? It does not introduce a second callsite. > @@ -639,18 +645,25 @@ static noinline_for_stack void free_page_list(struct list_head *free_pages) > pagevec_free(&freed_pvec); > } > > +/* Direct lumpy reclaim waits up to 5 seconds for background cleaning */ > +#define MAX_SWAP_CLEAN_WAIT 50 That's placed a bit randomly now that shrink_page_list() doesn't use it anymore. I moved it just above shrink_inactive_list() but maybe it would be better at the file's head? > /* > * shrink_page_list() returns the number of reclaimed pages > */ > static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list, > struct scan_control *sc, > - enum pageout_io sync_writeback) > + enum pageout_io sync_writeback, > + unsigned long *nr_still_dirty) > { > - LIST_HEAD(ret_pages); > LIST_HEAD(free_pages); > - int pgactivate = 0; > + LIST_HEAD(putback_pages); > + LIST_HEAD(dirty_pages); > + int pgactivate; > + unsigned long nr_dirty = 0; > unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0; > > + pgactivate = 0; Spurious change? > cond_resched(); > > while (!list_empty(page_list)) { > @@ -741,7 +754,18 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list, > } > } > > - if (PageDirty(page)) { > + if (PageDirty(page)) { Ha! > + /* > + * Only kswapd can writeback filesystem pages to > + * avoid risk of stack overflow > + */ > + if (page_is_file_cache(page) && !current_is_kswapd()) { > + list_add(&page->lru, &dirty_pages); > + unlock_page(page); > + nr_dirty++; > + goto keep_dirty; > + } I don't understand why you keep the extra dirty list. Couldn't this just be `goto keep_locked'? > if (references == PAGEREF_RECLAIM_CLEAN) > goto keep_locked; > if (!may_enter_fs) > @@ -852,13 +876,19 @@ activate_locked: > keep_locked: > unlock_page(page); > keep: > - list_add(&page->lru, &ret_pages); > + list_add(&page->lru, &putback_pages); > +keep_dirty: > VM_BUG_ON(PageLRU(page) || PageUnevictable(page)); > } > > free_page_list(&free_pages); > > - list_splice(&ret_pages, page_list); > + if (nr_dirty) { > + *nr_still_dirty = nr_dirty; You either have to set *nr_still_dirty unconditionally or (re)initialize the variable in shrink_inactive_list(). > + list_splice(&dirty_pages, page_list); > + } > + list_splice(&putback_pages, page_list); When we retry those pages, the dirty ones come last on the list. Was this maybe the intention behind collecting dirties separately? > @@ -1245,6 +1275,7 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct zone *zone, > unsigned long nr_active; > unsigned long nr_anon; > unsigned long nr_file; > + unsigned long nr_dirty; > > while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) { > congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10); > @@ -1293,26 +1324,34 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct zone *zone, > > spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock); > > - nr_reclaimed = shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC); > + nr_reclaimed = shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC, > + &nr_dirty); > > /* > - * If we are direct reclaiming for contiguous pages and we do > + * If specific pages are needed such as with direct reclaiming > + * for contiguous pages or for memory containers and we do > * not reclaim everything in the list, try again and wait > - * for IO to complete. This will stall high-order allocations > - * but that should be acceptable to the caller > + * for IO to complete. This will stall callers that require > + * specific pages but it should be acceptable to the caller > */ > - if (nr_reclaimed < nr_taken && !current_is_kswapd() && > - sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode) { > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10); > + if (sc->may_writepage && !current_is_kswapd() && > + (sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode || sc->mem_cgroup)) { > + int dirty_retry = MAX_SWAP_CLEAN_WAIT; > > - /* > - * The attempt at page out may have made some > - * of the pages active, mark them inactive again. > - */ > - nr_active = clear_active_flags(&page_list, NULL); > - count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_active); > + while (nr_reclaimed < nr_taken && nr_dirty && dirty_retry--) { > + wakeup_flusher_threads(laptop_mode ? 0 : nr_dirty); Yup, minding laptop_mode (together with may_writepage). Agreed. > + congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10); > > - nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC); > + /* > + * The attempt at page out may have made some > + * of the pages active, mark them inactive again. > + */ > + nr_active = clear_active_flags(&page_list, NULL); > + count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_active); > + > + nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, > + PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC, &nr_dirty); > + } > } > > local_irq_disable(); Thanks, Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/