• Johannes Weiner's avatar
    mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and swap floods · f53af428
    Johannes Weiner authored
    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 5df74196 ("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 ccc5dc67 ("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.orgSigned-off-by: default avatarJohannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
    Reviewed-by: default avatarRik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
    Acked-by: default avatarMel 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: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    f53af428
vmscan.c 211 KB