balance.rst 5.3 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100
  1. ================
  2. Memory Balancing
  3. ================
  4. Started Jan 2000 by Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@sgi.com>
  5. Memory balancing is needed for !__GFP_HIGH and !__GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM as
  6. well as for non __GFP_IO allocations.
  7. The first reason why a caller may avoid reclaim is that the caller can not
  8. sleep due to holding a spinlock or is in interrupt context. The second may
  9. be that the caller is willing to fail the allocation without incurring the
  10. overhead of page reclaim. This may happen for opportunistic high-order
  11. allocation requests that have order-0 fallback options. In such cases,
  12. the caller may also wish to avoid waking kswapd.
  13. __GFP_IO allocation requests are made to prevent file system deadlocks.
  14. In the absence of non sleepable allocation requests, it seems detrimental
  15. to be doing balancing. Page reclamation can be kicked off lazily, that
  16. is, only when needed (aka zone free memory is 0), instead of making it
  17. a proactive process.
  18. That being said, the kernel should try to fulfill requests for direct
  19. mapped pages from the direct mapped pool, instead of falling back on
  20. the dma pool, so as to keep the dma pool filled for dma requests (atomic
  21. or not). A similar argument applies to highmem and direct mapped pages.
  22. OTOH, if there is a lot of free dma pages, it is preferable to satisfy
  23. regular memory requests by allocating one from the dma pool, instead
  24. of incurring the overhead of regular zone balancing.
  25. In 2.2, memory balancing/page reclamation would kick off only when the
  26. _total_ number of free pages fell below 1/64 th of total memory. With the
  27. right ratio of dma and regular memory, it is quite possible that balancing
  28. would not be done even when the dma zone was completely empty. 2.2 has
  29. been running production machines of varying memory sizes, and seems to be
  30. doing fine even with the presence of this problem. In 2.3, due to
  31. HIGHMEM, this problem is aggravated.
  32. In 2.3, zone balancing can be done in one of two ways: depending on the
  33. zone size (and possibly of the size of lower class zones), we can decide
  34. at init time how many free pages we should aim for while balancing any
  35. zone. The good part is, while balancing, we do not need to look at sizes
  36. of lower class zones, the bad part is, we might do too frequent balancing
  37. due to ignoring possibly lower usage in the lower class zones. Also,
  38. with a slight change in the allocation routine, it is possible to reduce
  39. the memclass() macro to be a simple equality.
  40. Another possible solution is that we balance only when the free memory
  41. of a zone _and_ all its lower class zones falls below 1/64th of the
  42. total memory in the zone and its lower class zones. This fixes the 2.2
  43. balancing problem, and stays as close to 2.2 behavior as possible. Also,
  44. the balancing algorithm works the same way on the various architectures,
  45. which have different numbers and types of zones. If we wanted to get
  46. fancy, we could assign different weights to free pages in different
  47. zones in the future.
  48. Note that if the size of the regular zone is huge compared to dma zone,
  49. it becomes less significant to consider the free dma pages while
  50. deciding whether to balance the regular zone. The first solution
  51. becomes more attractive then.
  52. The appended patch implements the second solution. It also "fixes" two
  53. problems: first, kswapd is woken up as in 2.2 on low memory conditions
  54. for non-sleepable allocations. Second, the HIGHMEM zone is also balanced,
  55. so as to give a fighting chance for replace_with_highmem() to get a
  56. HIGHMEM page, as well as to ensure that HIGHMEM allocations do not
  57. fall back into regular zone. This also makes sure that HIGHMEM pages
  58. are not leaked (for example, in situations where a HIGHMEM page is in
  59. the swapcache but is not being used by anyone)
  60. kswapd also needs to know about the zones it should balance. kswapd is
  61. primarily needed in a situation where balancing can not be done,
  62. probably because all allocation requests are coming from intr context
  63. and all process contexts are sleeping. For 2.3, kswapd does not really
  64. need to balance the highmem zone, since intr context does not request
  65. highmem pages. kswapd looks at the zone_wake_kswapd field in the zone
  66. structure to decide whether a zone needs balancing.
  67. Page stealing from process memory and shm is done if stealing the page would
  68. alleviate memory pressure on any zone in the page's node that has fallen below
  69. its watermark.
  70. watemark[WMARK_MIN/WMARK_LOW/WMARK_HIGH]/low_on_memory/zone_wake_kswapd: These
  71. are per-zone fields, used to determine when a zone needs to be balanced. When
  72. the number of pages falls below watermark[WMARK_MIN], the hysteric field
  73. low_on_memory gets set. This stays set till the number of free pages becomes
  74. watermark[WMARK_HIGH]. When low_on_memory is set, page allocation requests will
  75. try to free some pages in the zone (providing GFP_WAIT is set in the request).
  76. Orthogonal to this, is the decision to poke kswapd to free some zone pages.
  77. That decision is not hysteresis based, and is done when the number of free
  78. pages is below watermark[WMARK_LOW]; in which case zone_wake_kswapd is also set.
  79. (Good) Ideas that I have heard:
  80. 1. Dynamic experience should influence balancing: number of failed requests
  81. for a zone can be tracked and fed into the balancing scheme (jalvo@mbay.net)
  82. 2. Implement a replace_with_highmem()-like replace_with_regular() to preserve
  83. dma pages. (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)