On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:47:38PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Joonsoo Kim" <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> > Date: Jul 28, 2016 7:57 PM > Subject: Re: [RFC] can we use vmalloc to alloc thread stack if compaction > failed > To: "Andy Lutomirski" <l...@kernel.org> > Cc: "Xishi Qiu" <qiuxi...@huawei.com>, "Michal Hocko" > <mho...@kernel.org>, "Tejun Heo" <t...@kernel.org>, "Ingo Molnar" > <mi...@kernel.org>, "Peter Zijlstra" <pet...@infradead.org>, "LKML" > <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Linux MM" <linux...@kvack.org>, > "Yisheng Xie" <xieyishe...@huawei.com> > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 08:07:51AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Xishi Qiu <qiuxi...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > On 2016/7/28 17:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Thu 28-07-16 16:45:06, Xishi Qiu wrote: > > > >>> On 2016/7/28 15:58, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Thu 28-07-16 15:41:53, Xishi Qiu wrote: > > > >>>>> On 2016/7/28 15:20, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Thu 28-07-16 15:08:26, Xishi Qiu wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Usually THREAD_SIZE_ORDER is 2, it means we need to alloc 16kb > > > >>>>>>> continuous > > > >>>>>>> physical memory during fork a new process. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> If the system's memory is very small, especially the smart phone, > > > >>>>>>> maybe there > > > >>>>>>> is only 1G memory. So the free memory is very small and > > > >>>>>>> compaction is not > > > >>>>>>> always success in slowpath(__alloc_pages_slowpath), then alloc > > > >>>>>>> thread stack > > > >>>>>>> may be failed for memory fragment. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Well, with the current implementation of the page allocator those > > > >>>>>> requests will not fail in most cases. The oom killer would be > > > >>>>>> invoked in > > > >>>>>> order to free up some memory. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Michal, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Yes, it success in most cases, but I did have seen this problem in > > > >>>>> some > > > >>>>> stress-test. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> DMA free:470628kB, but alloc 2 order block failed during fork a new > > > >>>>> process. > > > >>>>> There are so many memory fragments and the large block may be soon > > > >>>>> taken by > > > >>>>> others after compact because of stress-test. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> --- dmesg messages --- > > > >>>>> 07-13 08:41:51.341 > > > >>>>> <4>[309805.658142s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]sManagerService: > > > >>>>> page allocation failure: order:2, mode:0x2000d1 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Yes but this is __GFP_DMA allocation. I guess you have already > > > >>>> reported > > > >>>> this failure and you've been told that this is quite unexpected for > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> kernel stack allocation. It is your out-of-tree patch which just > > > >>>> makes > > > >>>> things worse because DMA restricted allocations are considered > > > >>>> "lowmem" > > > >>>> and so they do not invoke OOM killer and do not retry like regular > > > >>>> GFP_KERNEL allocations. > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi Michal, > > > >>> > > > >>> Yes, we add GFP_DMA, but I don't think this is the key for the > > > >>> problem. > > > >> > > > >> You are restricting the allocation request to a single zone which is > > > >> definitely not good. Look at how many larger order pages are available > > > >> in the Normal zone. > > > >> > > > >>> If we do oom-killer, maybe we will get a large block later, but there > > > >>> is enough free memory before oom(although most of them are fragments). > > > >> > > > >> Killing a task is of course the last resort action. It would give you > > > >> larger order blocks used for the victims thread. > > > >> > > > >>> I wonder if we can alloc success without kill any process in this > > > >>> situation. > > > >> > > > >> Sure it would be preferable to compact that memory but that might be > > > >> hard with your restriction in place. Consider that DMA zone would tend > > > >> to be less movable than normal zones as users would have to pin it for > > > >> DMA. Your DMA is really large so this might turn out to just happen to > > > >> work but note that the primary problem here is that you put a zone > > > >> restriction for your allocations. > > > >> > > > >>> Maybe use vmalloc is a good way, but I don't know the influence. > > > >> > > > >> You can have a look at vmalloc patches posted by Andy. They are not > > > >> that > > > >> trivial. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your comment, could you give me the link? > > > > > > > > > > I've been keeping it mostly up to date in this branch: > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=x86/vmap_stack > > > > > > It's currently out of sync due to a bunch of the patches being queued > > > elsewhere for the merge window. > > > > Hello, Andy. > > > > I have some questions about it. > > > > IIUC, to turn on HAVE_ARCH_VMAP_STACK on different architecture, there > > is nothing to be done in architecture side if the architecture doesn't > > support lazily faults in top-level paging entries for the vmalloc > > area. Is my understanding is correct? > > > > There should be nothing fundamental that needs to be done. On the > other hand, it might be good to make sure the arch code can print a > clean stack trace on stack overflow. > > If it's helpful, I just pushed out anew
You mean that you can turn on HAVE_ARCH_VMAP_STACK on the other arch? It would be helpful. :) > > > And, I'd like to know how you search problematic places using kernel > > stack for DMA. > > > > I did some searching for problematic sg_init_buf calls using > Coccinelle. I'm not very good at Coccinelle, so I may have missed > something. I'm also not familiar with Coccinelle. Could you share your .cocci script? I can think of following one but there would be a better way. virtual report @stack_var depends on report@ type T1; expression E1, E2; identifier I1; @@ ( * T1 I1; ) ... ( * sg_init_one(E1, &I1, E2) | * sg_set_buf(E1, &I1, E2) ) @stack_arr depends on report@ type T1; expression E1, E2, E3; identifier I1; @@ ( * T1 I1[E1]; ) ... ( * sg_init_one(E2, I1, E3) | * sg_set_buf(E2, I1, E3) ) > For the most part, DMA API debugging should have found the problems > already. The ones I found were in drivers that didn't do real DMA: > crypto users and virtio. Ah... using stack for DMA API is already prohibited. Thanks.
