mm, page_alloc: delete the zonelist_cache
The zonelist cache (zlc) was introduced to skip over zones that were
recently known to be full. This avoided expensive operations such as the
cpuset checks, watermark calculations and zone_reclaim. The situation
today is different and the complexity of zlc is harder to justify.
1) The cpuset checks are no-ops unless a cpuset is active and in general
are a lot cheaper.
2) zone_reclaim is now disabled by default and I suspect that was a large
source of the cost that zlc wanted to avoid. When it is enabled, it's
known to be a major source of stalling when nodes fill up and it's
unwise to hit every other user with the overhead.
3) Watermark checks are expensive to calculate for high-order
allocation requests. Later patches in this series will reduce the cost
of the watermark checking.
4) The most important issue is that in the current implementation it
is possible for a failed THP allocation to mark a zone full for order-0
allocations and cause a fallback to remote nodes.
The last issue could be addressed with additional complexity but as the
benefit of zlc is questionable, it is better to remove it. If stalls due
to zone_reclaim are ever reported then an alternative would be to
introduce deferring logic based on a timeout inside zone_reclaim itself
and leave the page allocator fast paths alone.
The impact on page-allocator microbenchmarks is negligible as they don't
hit the paths where the zlc comes into play. Most page-reclaim related
workloads showed no noticeable difference as a result of the removal.
The impact was noticeable in a workload called "stutter". One part uses a
lot of anonymous memory, a second measures mmap latency and a third copies
a large file. In an ideal world the latency application would not notice
the mmap latency. On a 2-node machine the results of this patch are
stutter
4.3.0-rc1 4.3.0-rc1
baseline nozlc-v4
Min mmap 20.9243 ( 0.00%) 20.7716 ( 0.73%)
1st-qrtle mmap 22.0612 ( 0.00%) 22.0680 ( -0.03%)
2nd-qrtle mmap 22.3291 ( 0.00%) 22.3809 ( -0.23%)
3rd-qrtle mmap 25.2244 ( 0.00%) 25.2396 ( -0.06%)
Max-90% mmap 48.0995 ( 0.00%) 28.3713 ( 41.02%)
Max-93% mmap 52.5557 ( 0.00%) 36.0170 ( 31.47%)
Max-95% mmap 55.8173 ( 0.00%) 47.3163 ( 15.23%)
Max-99% mmap 67.3781 ( 0.00%) 70.1140 ( -4.06%)
Max mmap 24447.6375 ( 0.00%) 12915.1356 ( 47.17%)
Mean mmap 33.7883 ( 0.00%) 27.7944 ( 17.74%)
Best99%Mean mmap 27.7825 ( 0.00%) 25.2767 ( 9.02%)
Best95%Mean mmap 26.3912 ( 0.00%) 23.7994 ( 9.82%)
Best90%Mean mmap 24.9886 ( 0.00%) 23.2251 ( 7.06%)
Best50%Mean mmap 22.0157 ( 0.00%) 22.0261 ( -0.05%)
Best10%Mean mmap 21.6705 ( 0.00%) 21.6083 ( 0.29%)
Best5%Mean mmap 21.5581 ( 0.00%) 21.4611 ( 0.45%)
Best1%Mean mmap 21.3079 ( 0.00%) 21.1631 ( 0.68%)
Note that the maximum stall latency went from 24 seconds to 12 which is
still bad but an improvement. The milage varies considerably 2-node
machine on an earlier test went from 494 seconds to 47 seconds and a
4-node machine that tested an earlier version of this patch went from a
worst case stall time of 6 seconds to 67ms. The nature of the benchmark
is inherently unpredictable as it is hammering the system and the milage
will vary between machines.
There is a secondary impact with potentially more direct reclaim because
zones are now being considered instead of being skipped by zlc. In this
particular test run it did not occur so will not be described. However,
in at least one test the following was observed
1. Direct reclaim rates were higher. This was likely due to direct reclaim
being entered instead of the zlc disabling a zone and busy looping.
Busy looping may have the effect of allowing kswapd to make more
progress and in some cases may be better overall. If this is found then
the correct action is to put direct reclaimers to sleep on a waitqueue
and allow kswapd make forward progress. Busy looping on the zlc is even
worse than when the allocator used to blindly call congestion_wait().
2. There was higher swap activity as direct reclaim was active.
3. Direct reclaim efficiency was lower. This is related to 1 as more
scanning activity also encountered more pages that could not be
immediately reclaimed
In that case, the direct page scan and reclaim rates are noticeable but
it is not considered a problem for a few reasons
1. The test is primarily concerned with latency. The mmap attempts are also
faulted which means there are THP allocation requests. The ZLC could
cause zones to be disabled causing the process to busy loop instead
of reclaiming. This looks like elevated direct reclaim activity but
it's the correct action to take based on what processes requested.
2. The test hammers reclaim and compaction heavily. The number of successful
THP faults is highly variable but affects the reclaim stats. It's not a
realistic or reasonable measure of page reclaim activity.
3. No other page-reclaim intensive workload that was tested showed a problem.
4. If a workload is identified that benefitted from the busy looping then it
should be fixed by having direct reclaimers sleep on a wait queue until
woken by kswapd instead of busy looping. We had this class of problem before
when congestion_waits() with a fixed timeout was a brain damaged decision
but happened to benefit some workloads.
If a workload is identified that relied on the zlc to busy loop then it
should be fixed correctly and have a direct reclaimer sleep on a waitqueue
until woken by kswapd.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2 files changed