commit 90afa5de6f3fa89a733861e843377302479fcf7e upstream.
A bug was brought to my attention against a distro kernel but it affects
mainline and I believe problems like this have been reported in various
guises on the mailing lists although I don't have specific examples at the
moment.
The reported problem was that malloc() stalled for a long time (minutes in
some cases) if a large tmpfs mount was occupying a large percentage of
memory overall. The pages did not get cleaned or reclaimed by
zone_reclaim() because the zone_reclaim_mode was unsuitable, but the lists
are uselessly scanned frequencly making the CPU spin at near 100%.
This patchset intends to address that bug and bring the behaviour of
zone_reclaim() more in line with expectations which were noticed during
investigation. It is based on top of mmotm and takes advantage of
Kosaki's work with respect to zone_reclaim().
Patch 1 fixes the heuristics that zone_reclaim() uses to determine if the
scan should go ahead. The broken heuristic is what was causing the
malloc() stall as it uselessly scanned the LRU constantly. Currently,
zone_reclaim is assuming zone_reclaim_mode is 1 and historically it
could not deal with tmpfs pages at all. This fixes up the heuristic so
that an unnecessary scan is more likely to be correctly avoided.
Patch 2 notes that zone_reclaim() returning a failure automatically means
the zone is marked full. This is not always true. It could have
failed because the GFP mask or zone_reclaim_mode were unsuitable.
Patch 3 introduces a counter zreclaim_failed that will increment each
time the zone_reclaim scan-avoidance heuristics fail. If that
counter is rapidly increasing, then zone_reclaim_mode should be
set to 0 as a temporarily resolution and a bug reported because
the scan-avoidance heuristic is still broken.
This patch:
On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that
is a more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA
distances for example, a zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that
clean unmapped pages will be reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not
being met.
There is a heuristic that determines if the scan is worthwhile but the
problem is that the heuristic is not being properly applied and is
basically assuming zone_reclaim_mode is 1 if it is enabled. The lack of
proper detection can manfiest as high CPU usage as the LRU list is scanned
uselessly.
Historically, once enabled it was depending on NR_FILE_PAGES which may
include swapcache pages that the reclaim_mode cannot deal with. Patch
vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch by
Kosaki Motohiro noted that zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES) included
pages that were not file-backed such as swapcache and made a calculation
based on the inactive, active and mapped files. This is far superior when
zone_reclaim==1 but if RECLAIM_SWAP is set, then NR_FILE_PAGES is a
reasonable starting figure.
This patch alters how zone_reclaim() works out how many pages it might be
able to reclaim given the current reclaim_mode. If RECLAIM_SWAP is set in
the reclaim_mode it will either consider NR_FILE_PAGES as potential
candidates or else use NR_{IN}ACTIVE}_PAGES-NR_FILE_MAPPED to discount
swapcache and other non-file-backed pages. If RECLAIM_WRITE is not set,
then NR_FILE_DIRTY number of pages are not candidates. If RECLAIM_SWAP is
not set, then NR_FILE_MAPPED are not.
[kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com: Estimate unmapped pages minus tmpfs pages]
[fengguang.wu@intel.com: Fix underflow problem in Kosaki's estimate]
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>