balance 5.2 KB

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889909192939495
  1. Started Jan 2000 by Kanoj Sarcar <[email protected]>
  2. Memory balancing is needed for !__GFP_ATOMIC and !__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM as
  3. well as for non __GFP_IO allocations.
  4. The first reason why a caller may avoid reclaim is that the caller can not
  5. sleep due to holding a spinlock or is in interrupt context. The second may
  6. be that the caller is willing to fail the allocation without incurring the
  7. overhead of page reclaim. This may happen for opportunistic high-order
  8. allocation requests that have order-0 fallback options. In such cases,
  9. the caller may also wish to avoid waking kswapd.
  10. __GFP_IO allocation requests are made to prevent file system deadlocks.
  11. In the absence of non sleepable allocation requests, it seems detrimental
  12. to be doing balancing. Page reclamation can be kicked off lazily, that
  13. is, only when needed (aka zone free memory is 0), instead of making it
  14. a proactive process.
  15. That being said, the kernel should try to fulfill requests for direct
  16. mapped pages from the direct mapped pool, instead of falling back on
  17. the dma pool, so as to keep the dma pool filled for dma requests (atomic
  18. or not). A similar argument applies to highmem and direct mapped pages.
  19. OTOH, if there is a lot of free dma pages, it is preferable to satisfy
  20. regular memory requests by allocating one from the dma pool, instead
  21. of incurring the overhead of regular zone balancing.
  22. In 2.2, memory balancing/page reclamation would kick off only when the
  23. _total_ number of free pages fell below 1/64 th of total memory. With the
  24. right ratio of dma and regular memory, it is quite possible that balancing
  25. would not be done even when the dma zone was completely empty. 2.2 has
  26. been running production machines of varying memory sizes, and seems to be
  27. doing fine even with the presence of this problem. In 2.3, due to
  28. HIGHMEM, this problem is aggravated.
  29. In 2.3, zone balancing can be done in one of two ways: depending on the
  30. zone size (and possibly of the size of lower class zones), we can decide
  31. at init time how many free pages we should aim for while balancing any
  32. zone. The good part is, while balancing, we do not need to look at sizes
  33. of lower class zones, the bad part is, we might do too frequent balancing
  34. due to ignoring possibly lower usage in the lower class zones. Also,
  35. with a slight change in the allocation routine, it is possible to reduce
  36. the memclass() macro to be a simple equality.
  37. Another possible solution is that we balance only when the free memory
  38. of a zone _and_ all its lower class zones falls below 1/64th of the
  39. total memory in the zone and its lower class zones. This fixes the 2.2
  40. balancing problem, and stays as close to 2.2 behavior as possible. Also,
  41. the balancing algorithm works the same way on the various architectures,
  42. which have different numbers and types of zones. If we wanted to get
  43. fancy, we could assign different weights to free pages in different
  44. zones in the future.
  45. Note that if the size of the regular zone is huge compared to dma zone,
  46. it becomes less significant to consider the free dma pages while
  47. deciding whether to balance the regular zone. The first solution
  48. becomes more attractive then.
  49. The appended patch implements the second solution. It also "fixes" two
  50. problems: first, kswapd is woken up as in 2.2 on low memory conditions
  51. for non-sleepable allocations. Second, the HIGHMEM zone is also balanced,
  52. so as to give a fighting chance for replace_with_highmem() to get a
  53. HIGHMEM page, as well as to ensure that HIGHMEM allocations do not
  54. fall back into regular zone. This also makes sure that HIGHMEM pages
  55. are not leaked (for example, in situations where a HIGHMEM page is in
  56. the swapcache but is not being used by anyone)
  57. kswapd also needs to know about the zones it should balance. kswapd is
  58. primarily needed in a situation where balancing can not be done,
  59. probably because all allocation requests are coming from intr context
  60. and all process contexts are sleeping. For 2.3, kswapd does not really
  61. need to balance the highmem zone, since intr context does not request
  62. highmem pages. kswapd looks at the zone_wake_kswapd field in the zone
  63. structure to decide whether a zone needs balancing.
  64. Page stealing from process memory and shm is done if stealing the page would
  65. alleviate memory pressure on any zone in the page's node that has fallen below
  66. its watermark.
  67. watemark[WMARK_MIN/WMARK_LOW/WMARK_HIGH]/low_on_memory/zone_wake_kswapd: These
  68. are per-zone fields, used to determine when a zone needs to be balanced. When
  69. the number of pages falls below watermark[WMARK_MIN], the hysteric field
  70. low_on_memory gets set. This stays set till the number of free pages becomes
  71. watermark[WMARK_HIGH]. When low_on_memory is set, page allocation requests will
  72. try to free some pages in the zone (providing GFP_WAIT is set in the request).
  73. Orthogonal to this, is the decision to poke kswapd to free some zone pages.
  74. That decision is not hysteresis based, and is done when the number of free
  75. pages is below watermark[WMARK_LOW]; in which case zone_wake_kswapd is also set.
  76. (Good) Ideas that I have heard:
  77. 1. Dynamic experience should influence balancing: number of failed requests
  78. for a zone can be tracked and fed into the balancing scheme ([email protected])
  79. 2. Implement a replace_with_highmem()-like replace_with_regular() to preserve
  80. dma pages. ([email protected])