From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@valinux.co.jp>,
lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Memory controller soft limit reclaim on contention (v5)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:31:41 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090313132426.AF4D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090313041341.GA16897@balbir.in.ibm.com>
> > > - did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order, gfp_mask);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Try to free up some pages from the memory controllers soft
> > > + * limit queue.
> > > + */
> > > + did_some_progress = mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(zonelist, gfp_mask);
> > > + if (!order || !did_some_progress)
> > > + did_some_progress += try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order,
> > > + gfp_mask);
> >
> > I have two objection to this.
> >
> > - "if (!order || !did_some_progress)" mean no call try_to_free_pages()
> > in order>0 and did_some_progress>0 case.
> > but mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim() don't have lumpy reclaim.
> > then, it break high order reclaim.
>
> I am sending a fix for this right away. Thanks, the check should be
> if (order || !did_some_progress)
No.
it isn't enough.
after is does, order-1 allocation case twrice reclaim (soft limit shrinking
and normal try_to_free_pages()).
then, order-1 reclaim makes slower about 2 times.
unfortunately, order-1 allocation is very frequent. it is used for
kernel stack.
> > - in global reclaim view, foreground reclaim and background reclaim's
> > reclaim rate is about 1:9 typically.
> > then, kswapd reclaim the pages by global lru order before proceccing
> > this logic.
> > IOW, this soft limit is not SOFT.
>
> It depends on what you mean by soft. I call them soft since they are
> imposed only when there is contention. If you mean kswapd runs more
> often than direct reclaim, that is true, but it does not impact this
> code extensively since the high water mark is a very small compared to
> the pages present on the system.
No.
My point is, contention case kswapd wakeup. and kswapd reclaim by
global lru order before soft limit shrinking.
Therefore, In typical usage, mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim() almost
don't call properly.
soft limit shrinking should run before processing global reclaim.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-13 4:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-12 17:56 [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v5) Balbir Singh
2009-03-12 17:56 ` [PATCH 1/4] Memory controller soft limit documentation (v5) Balbir Singh
2009-03-12 17:56 ` [PATCH 2/4] Memory controller soft limit interface (v5) Balbir Singh
2009-03-12 22:59 ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-13 4:58 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-12 17:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] Memory controller soft limit organize cgroups (v5) Balbir Singh
2009-03-12 23:04 ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-13 5:03 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 0:47 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-13 5:04 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 5:22 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-13 8:20 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 6:59 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-13 7:09 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-12 17:56 ` [PATCH 4/4] Memory controller soft limit reclaim on contention (v5) Balbir Singh
2009-03-12 23:34 ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-13 7:53 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 1:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-13 4:13 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 4:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2009-03-13 4:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-13 5:07 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 6:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-13 7:03 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 7:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-13 7:26 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 8:37 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-13 5:26 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 5:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-03-13 4:58 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 6:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-13 7:15 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 8:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-13 7:02 ` [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v5) KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-13 7:07 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-13 7:15 ` Andrew Morton
2009-03-13 7:29 ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-13 7:18 ` Balbir Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090313132426.AF4D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=yamamoto@valinux.co.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox