Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: /proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh skip checking known negative stats

[Hugh Dickins]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:14:03PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > vmstat_refresh() can occasionally catch nr_zone_write_pending and
> > nr_writeback when they are transiently negative.  The reason is partly
> > that the interrupt which decrements them in test_clear_page_writeback()
> > can come in before __test_set_page_writeback() got to increment them;
> > but transient negatives are still seen even when that is prevented, and
> > we have not yet resolved why (Roman believes that it is an unavoidable
> > consequence of the refresh scheduled on each cpu).  But those stats are
> > not buggy, they have never been seen to drift away from 0 permanently:
> > so just avoid the annoyance of showing a warning on them.
> > 
> > Similarly avoid showing a warning on nr_free_cma: CMA users have seen
> > that one reported negative from /proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh too, but it
> > does drift away permanently: I believe that's because its incrementation
> > and decrementation are decided by page migratetype, but the migratetype
> > of a pageblock is not guaranteed to be constant.
> > 
> > Use switch statements so we can most easily add or remove cases later.
> 
> I'm OK with the code, but I can't fully agree with the commit log. I don't think
> there is any mystery around negative values. Let me copy-paste the explanation
> from my original patch:
> 
>     These warnings* are generated by the vmstat_refresh() function, which
>     assumes that atomic zone and numa counters can't go below zero.  However,
>     on a SMP machine it's not quite right: due to per-cpu caching it can in
>     theory be as low as -(zone threshold) * NR_CPUs.
>     
>     For instance, let's say all cma pages are in use and NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES
>     reached 0.  Then we've reclaimed a small number of cma pages on each CPU
>     except CPU0, so that most percpu NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES counters are slightly
>     positive (the atomic counter is still 0).  Then somebody on CPU0 consumes
>     all these pages.  The number of pages can easily exceed the threshold and
>     a negative value will be committed to the atomic counter.
> 
>     * warnings about negative NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES

Hi Roman, thanks for your Acks on the others - and indeed this
is the one on which disagreement was more to be expected.

I certainly wanted (and included below) a Link to your original patch;
and even wondered whether to paste your description into mine.
But I read it again and still have issues with it.

Mainly, it does not convey at all, that touching stat_refresh adds the
per-cpu counts into the global atomics, resetting per-cpu counts to 0.
Which does not invalidate your explanation: races might still manage
to underflow; but it does take the "easily" out of "can easily exceed".

Since I don't use CMA on any machine, I cannot be sure, but it looked
like a bad example to rely upon, because of its migratetype-based
accounting.  If you use /proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh frequently enough,
without suppressing the warning, I guess that uncertainty could be
resolved by checking whether nr_free_cma is seen with negative value
in consecutive refreshes - which would tend to support my migratetype
theory - or only singly - which would support your raciness theory.

> 
> Actually, the same is almost true for ANY other counter. What differs CMA, dirty
> and write pending counters is that they can reach 0 value under normal conditions.
> Other counters are usually not reaching values small enough to see negative values
> on a reasonable sized machine.

Looking through /proc/vmstat now, yes, I can see that there are fewer
counters which hover near 0 than I had imagined: more have a positive
bias, or are monotonically increasing.  And I'd be lying if I said I'd
never seen any others than nr_writeback or nr_zone_write_pending caught
negative.  But what are you asking for?  Should the patch be changed, to
retry the refresh_vm_stats() before warning, if it sees any negative?
Depends on how terrible one line in dmesg is considered!

> 
> Does it makes sense?

I'm not sure: you were not asking for the patch to be changed, but
its commit log: and I better not say "Roman believes that it is an
unavoidable consequence of the refresh scheduled on each cpu" if
that's untrue (or unclear: now it reads to me as if we're accusing
the refresh of messing things up, whereas it's the non-atomic nature
of the refresh which leaves it vulnerable to races).

Hugh

> 
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200714173747.3315771-1-guro@xxxxxx/
> > Reported-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 
> >  mm/vmstat.c |   15 +++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > 
> > --- vmstat2/mm/vmstat.c	2021-02-25 11:56:18.000000000 -0800
> > +++ vmstat3/mm/vmstat.c	2021-02-25 12:42:15.000000000 -0800
> > @@ -1840,6 +1840,14 @@ int vmstat_refresh(struct ctl_table *tab
> >  	if (err)
> >  		return err;
> >  	for (i = 0; i < NR_VM_ZONE_STAT_ITEMS; i++) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Skip checking stats known to go negative occasionally.
> > +		 */
> > +		switch (i) {
> > +		case NR_ZONE_WRITE_PENDING:
> > +		case NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES:
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> >  		val = atomic_long_read(&vm_zone_stat[i]);
> >  		if (val < 0) {
> >  			pr_warn("%s: %s %ld\n",
> > @@ -1856,6 +1864,13 @@ int vmstat_refresh(struct ctl_table *tab
> >  	}
> >  #endif
> >  	for (i = 0; i < NR_VM_NODE_STAT_ITEMS; i++) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Skip checking stats known to go negative occasionally.
> > +		 */
> > +		switch (i) {
> > +		case NR_WRITEBACK:
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> >  		val = atomic_long_read(&vm_node_stat[i]);
> >  		if (val < 0) {
> >  			pr_warn("%s: %s %ld\n",
>