[PATCH 11/15] mm: trigger page reclaim in alloc_contig_range() to stabilize watermarks

[Marek Szyprowski]

Hello,

On Monday, January 30, 2012 2:06 PM Mel Gorman wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:00:53AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > alloc_contig_range() performs memory allocation so it also should keep
> > track on keeping the correct level of memory watermarks. This commit adds
> > a call to *_slowpath style reclaim to grab enough pages to make sure that
> > the final collection of contiguous pages from freelists will not starve
> > the system.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski at samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park at samsung.com>
> > CC: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86 at mina86.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/page_alloc.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index e35d06b..05eaa82 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -5613,6 +5613,34 @@ static int __alloc_contig_migrate_range(unsigned long start, unsigned
> long end)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Trigger memory pressure bump to reclaim some pages in order to be able to
> > + * allocate 'count' pages in single page units. Does similar work as
> > + *__alloc_pages_slowpath() function.
> > + */
> > +static int __reclaim_pages(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, int count)
> > +{
> > +	enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask);
> > +	struct zonelist *zonelist = node_zonelist(0, gfp_mask);
> > +	int did_some_progress = 0;
> > +	int order = 1;
> > +	unsigned long watermark;
> > +
> > +	/* Obey watermarks as if the page was being allocated */
> > +	watermark = low_wmark_pages(zone) + count;
> > +	while (!zone_watermark_ok(zone, 0, watermark, 0, 0)) {
> > +		wake_all_kswapd(order, zonelist, high_zoneidx, zone_idx(zone));
> > +
> > +		did_some_progress = __perform_reclaim(gfp_mask, order, zonelist,
> > +						      NULL);
> > +		if (!did_some_progress) {
> > +			/* Exhausted what can be done so it's blamo time */
> > +			out_of_memory(zonelist, gfp_mask, order, NULL);
> > +		}
> 
> There are three problems here
> 
> 1. CMA can trigger the OOM killer.
> 
> That seems like overkill to me but as I do not know the consequences
> of CMA failing, it's your call.

This behavior is intended, we agreed that the contiguous allocations should
have higher priority than others.

> 2. You cannot guarantee that try_to_free_pages will free pages from the
>    zone you care about or that kswapd will do anything
> 
> You check the watermarks and take into account the size of the pending
> CMA allocation. kswapd in vmscan.c on the other hand will simply check
> the watermarks and probably go back to sleep. You should be aware of
> this in case you ever get bugs that CMA takes too long and that it
> appears to be stuck in this loop with kswapd staying asleep.

Right, I experienced this problem today. The simplest workaround I've 
found is to adjust watermark before calling kswapd, but I'm not sure 
that increasing min_free_kbytes and calling setup_per_zone_wmarks() is
the nicest approach for it.

> 3. You reclaim from zones other than your target zone
> 
> try_to_free_pages is not necessarily going to free pages in the
> zone you are checking for. It'll work on ARM in many cases because
> there will be only one zone but on other arches, this logic will
> be problematic and will potentially livelock. You need to pass in
> a zonelist that only contains the zone that CMA cares about. If it
> cannot reclaim, did_some_progress == 0 and it'll exit. Otherwise
> there is a possibility that this will loop forever reclaiming pages
> from the wrong zones.

Right. I tested it on a system with only one zone, so I never experienced 
such problem. For the first version I think we might assume that the buffer
allocated by alloc_contig_range() must fit the single zone. I will add some
comments about it. Later we can extend it for more advanced cases. 

> I won't ack this particular patch but I am not going to insist that
> you fix these prior to merging either. If you leave problem 3 as it
> is, I would really like to see a comment explaning the problem for
> future users of CMA on other arches (if they exist).

I will add more comments about the issues You have pointed out to make
the life easier for other arch developers.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center