PDS Kernel Configuration

linux-tkg-patches/6.0/0012-misc-additions.patch

@@ -64,6 +64,140 @@ index 2c7171e0b0010..85de313ddec29 100644
  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE
  	help
 
+From 2535fbde890f14c78b750139fcf87d1143850626 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
+Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:28:11 -0400
+Subject: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and swap floods
+
+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 5df741963d52 ("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 ccc5dc67340c ("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.org
+Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
+Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
+Acked-by: Mel 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: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
+---
+ mm/vmscan.c | 10 ++++------
+ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
+index 382dbe97329f33..266eb8cfe93a67 100644
+--- a/mm/vmscan.c
++++ b/mm/vmscan.c
+@@ -2955,8 +2955,8 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+ 	enum lru_list lru;
+ 	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
+ 	unsigned long nr_to_reclaim = sc->nr_to_reclaim;
++	bool proportional_reclaim;
+ 	struct blk_plug plug;
+-	bool scan_adjusted;
+
+ 	get_scan_count(lruvec, sc, nr);
+
+@@ -2974,8 +2974,8 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+ 	 * abort proportional reclaim if either the file or anon lru has already
+ 	 * dropped to zero at the first pass.
+ 	 */
+-	scan_adjusted = (!cgroup_reclaim(sc) && !current_is_kswapd() &&
+-			 sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY);
++	proportional_reclaim = (!cgroup_reclaim(sc) && !current_is_kswapd() &&
++				sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY);
+
+ 	blk_start_plug(&plug);
+ 	while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
+@@ -2995,7 +2995,7 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+
+ 		cond_resched();
+
+-		if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || scan_adjusted)
++		if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || proportional_reclaim)
+ 			continue;
+
+ 		/*
+@@ -3046,8 +3046,6 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+ 		nr_scanned = targets[lru] - nr[lru];
+ 		nr[lru] = targets[lru] * (100 - percentage) / 100;
+ 		nr[lru] -= min(nr[lru], nr_scanned);
+-
+-		scan_adjusted = true;
+ 	}
+ 	blk_finish_plug(&plug);
+ 	sc->nr_reclaimed += nr_reclaimed;
 From 430daaab3c78de6bd82f10cfb5a0f016c6e583f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
 From: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:07:34 -0400

linux-tkg-patches/6.1/0012-misc-additions.patch

@@ -64,6 +64,140 @@ index 2c7171e0b0010..85de313ddec29 100644
  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE
  	help
 
+From 2535fbde890f14c78b750139fcf87d1143850626 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
+Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:28:11 -0400
+Subject: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and swap floods
+
+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 5df741963d52 ("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 ccc5dc67340c ("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.org
+Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
+Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
+Acked-by: Mel 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: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
+---
+ mm/vmscan.c | 10 ++++------
+ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
+index 382dbe97329f33..266eb8cfe93a67 100644
+--- a/mm/vmscan.c
++++ b/mm/vmscan.c
+@@ -2955,8 +2955,8 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+ 	enum lru_list lru;
+ 	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
+ 	unsigned long nr_to_reclaim = sc->nr_to_reclaim;
++	bool proportional_reclaim;
+ 	struct blk_plug plug;
+-	bool scan_adjusted;
+
+ 	get_scan_count(lruvec, sc, nr);
+
+@@ -2974,8 +2974,8 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+ 	 * abort proportional reclaim if either the file or anon lru has already
+ 	 * dropped to zero at the first pass.
+ 	 */
+-	scan_adjusted = (!cgroup_reclaim(sc) && !current_is_kswapd() &&
+-			 sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY);
++	proportional_reclaim = (!cgroup_reclaim(sc) && !current_is_kswapd() &&
++				sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY);
+
+ 	blk_start_plug(&plug);
+ 	while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
+@@ -2995,7 +2995,7 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+
+ 		cond_resched();
+
+-		if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || scan_adjusted)
++		if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || proportional_reclaim)
+ 			continue;
+
+ 		/*
+@@ -3046,8 +3046,6 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
+ 		nr_scanned = targets[lru] - nr[lru];
+ 		nr[lru] = targets[lru] * (100 - percentage) / 100;
+ 		nr[lru] -= min(nr[lru], nr_scanned);
+-
+-		scan_adjusted = true;
+ 	}
+ 	blk_finish_plug(&plug);
+ 	sc->nr_reclaimed += nr_reclaimed;
 From 430daaab3c78de6bd82f10cfb5a0f016c6e583f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
 From: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:07:34 -0400