IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
During proactive reclaim, we sometimes observe severe overreclaim, with
several thousand times more pages reclaimed than requested.
This trace was obtained from shrink_lruvec() during such an instance:
prio:0 anon_cost:1141521 file_cost:7767
nr_reclaimed:4387406 nr_to_reclaim:1047 (or_factor:4190)
nr=[7161123 345 578 1111]
While he reclaimer requested 4M, vmscan reclaimed close to 16G, most of it
by swapping. These requests take over a minute, during which the write()
to memory.reclaim is unkillably stuck inside the kernel.
Digging into the source, this is caused by the proportional reclaim
bailout logic. This code tries to resolve a fundamental conflict: to
reclaim roughly what was requested, while also aging all LRUs fairly and
in accordance to their size, swappiness, refault rates etc. The way it
attempts fairness is that once the reclaim goal has been reached, it stops
scanning the LRUs with the smaller remaining scan targets, and adjusts the
remainder of the bigger LRUs according to how much of the smaller LRUs was
scanned. It then finishes scanning that remainder regardless of the
reclaim goal.
This works fine if priority levels are low and the LRU lists are
comparable in size. However, in this instance, the cgroup that is
targeted by proactive reclaim has almost no files left - they've already
been squeezed out by proactive reclaim earlier - and the remaining anon
pages are hot. Anon rotations cause the priority level to drop to 0,
which results in reclaim targeting all of anon (a lot) and all of file
(almost nothing). By the time reclaim decides to bail, it has scanned
most or all of the file target, and therefor must also scan most or all of
the enormous anon target. This target is thousands of times larger than
the reclaim goal, thus causing the overreclaim.
The bailout code hasn't changed in years, why is this failing now? The
most likely explanations are two other recent changes in anon reclaim:
1. Before the series starting with commit 5df741963d ("mm: fix LRU
balancing effect of new transparent huge pages"), the VM was
overall relatively reluctant to swap at all, even if swap was
configured. This means the LRU balancing code didn't come into play
as often as it does now, and mostly in high pressure situations
where pronounced swap activity wouldn't be as surprising.
2. For historic reasons, shrink_lruvec() loops on the scan targets of
all LRU lists except the active anon one, meaning it would bail if
the only remaining pages to scan were active anon - even if there
were a lot of them.
Before the series starting with commit ccc5dc6734 ("mm/vmscan:
make active/inactive ratio as 1:1 for anon lru"), most anon pages
would live on the active LRU; the inactive one would contain only a
handful of preselected reclaim candidates. After the series, anon
gets aged similarly to file, and the inactive list is the default
for new anon pages as well, making it often the much bigger list.
As a result, the VM is now more likely to actually finish large
anon targets than before.
Change the code such that only one SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX-sized nudge toward the
larger LRU lists is made before bailing out on a met reclaim goal.
This fixes the extreme overreclaim problem.
Fairness is more subtle and harder to evaluate. No obvious misbehavior
was observed on the test workload, in any case. Conceptually, fairness
should primarily be a cumulative effect from regular, lower priority
scans. Once the VM is in trouble and needs to escalate scan targets to
make forward progress, fairness needs to take a backseat. This is also
acknowledged by the myriad exceptions in get_scan_count(). This patch
makes fairness decrease gradually, as it keeps fairness work static over
increasing priority levels with growing scan targets. This should make
more sense - although we may have to re-visit the exact values.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220802162811.39216-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
f53af4285d