mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones
The maximum number of dirty pages that exist in the system at any time is
determined by a number of pages considered dirtyable and a user-configured
percentage of those, or an absolute number in bytes.
This number of dirtyable pages is the sum of memory provided by all the
zones in the system minus their lowmem reserves and high watermarks, so
that the system can retain a healthy number of free pages without having
to reclaim dirty pages.
But there is a flaw in that we have a zoned page allocator which does not
care about the global state but rather the state of individual memory
zones. And right now there is nothing that prevents one zone from filling
up with dirty pages while other zones are spared, which frequently leads
to situations where kswapd, in order to restore the watermark of free
pages, does indeed have to write pages from that zone's LRU list. This
can interfere so badly with IO from the flusher threads that major
filesystems (btrfs, xfs, ext4) mostly ignore write requests from reclaim
already, taking away the VM's only possibility to keep such a zone
balanced, aside from hoping the flushers will soon clean pages from that
zone.
Enter per-zone dirty limits. They are to a zone's dirtyable memory what
the global limit is to the global amount of dirtyable memory, and try to
make sure that no single zone receives more than its fair share of the
globally allowed dirty pages in the first place. As the number of pages
considered dirtyable excludes the zones' lowmem reserves and high
watermarks, the maximum number of dirty pages in a zone is such that the
zone can always be balanced without requiring page cleaning.
As this is a placement decision in the page allocator and pages are
dirtied only after the allocation, this patch allows allocators to pass
__GFP_WRITE when they know in advance that the page will be written to and
become dirty soon. The page allocator will then attempt to allocate from
the first zone of the zonelist - which on NUMA is determined by the task's
NUMA memory policy - that has not exceeded its dirty limit.
At first glance, it would appear that the diversion to lower zones can
increase pressure on them, but this is not the case. With a full high
zone, allocations will be diverted to lower zones eventually, so it is
more of a shift in timing of the lower zone allocations. Workloads that
previously could fit their dirty pages completely in the higher zone may
be forced to allocate from lower zones, but the amount of pages that
"spill over" are limited themselves by the lower zones' dirty constraints,
and thus unlikely to become a problem.
For now, the problem of unfair dirty page distribution remains for NUMA
configurations where the zones allowed for allocation are in sum not big
enough to trigger the global dirty limits, wake up the flusher threads and
remedy the situation. Because of this, an allocation that could not
succeed on any of the considered zones is allowed to ignore the dirty
limits before going into direct reclaim or even failing the allocation,
until a future patch changes the global dirty throttling and flusher
thread activation so that they take individual zone states into account.
Test results
15M DMA + 3246M DMA32 + 504 Normal = 3765M memory
40% dirty ratio
16G USB thumb drive
10 runs of dd if=/dev/zero of=disk/zeroes bs=32k count=$((10 << 15))
seconds nr_vmscan_write
(stddev) min| median| max
xfs
vanilla: 549.747( 3.492) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
patched: 550.996( 3.802) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
fuse-ntfs
vanilla: 1183.094(53.178) 54349.000| 59341.000| 65163.000
patched: 558.049(17.914) 0.000| 0.000| 43.000
btrfs
vanilla: 573.679(14.015) 156657.000| 460178.000| 606926.000
patched: 563.365(11.368) 0.000| 0.000| 1362.000
ext4
vanilla: 561.197(15.782) 0.000|2725438.000|4143837.000
patched: 568.806(17.496) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 2cb9eb7..4f95bcf 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1735,6 +1735,35 @@
if ((alloc_flags & ALLOC_CPUSET) &&
!cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall(zone, gfp_mask))
continue;
+ /*
+ * When allocating a page cache page for writing, we
+ * want to get it from a zone that is within its dirty
+ * limit, such that no single zone holds more than its
+ * proportional share of globally allowed dirty pages.
+ * The dirty limits take into account the zone's
+ * lowmem reserves and high watermark so that kswapd
+ * should be able to balance it without having to
+ * write pages from its LRU list.
+ *
+ * This may look like it could increase pressure on
+ * lower zones by failing allocations in higher zones
+ * before they are full. But the pages that do spill
+ * over are limited as the lower zones are protected
+ * by this very same mechanism. It should not become
+ * a practical burden to them.
+ *
+ * XXX: For now, allow allocations to potentially
+ * exceed the per-zone dirty limit in the slowpath
+ * (ALLOC_WMARK_LOW unset) before going into reclaim,
+ * which is important when on a NUMA setup the allowed
+ * zones are together not big enough to reach the
+ * global limit. The proper fix for these situations
+ * will require awareness of zones in the
+ * dirty-throttling and the flusher threads.
+ */
+ if ((alloc_flags & ALLOC_WMARK_LOW) &&
+ (gfp_mask & __GFP_WRITE) && !zone_dirty_ok(zone))
+ goto this_zone_full;
BUILD_BUG_ON(ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS < NR_WMARK);
if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS)) {