linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
	"linuxram@us.ibm.com" <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Properly account for the number of page cache pages zone_reclaim() can reclaim
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:19:39 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090610011939.GA5603@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1244566904-31470-2-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:01:41AM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that
> is a more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA
> distances for example, a zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean
> unmapped pages will be reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being met.
> 
> There is a heuristic that determines if the scan is worthwhile but the
> problem is that the heuristic is not being properly applied and is basically
> assuming zone_reclaim_mode is 1 if it is enabled.
> 
> Historically, once enabled it was depending on NR_FILE_PAGES which may
> include swapcache pages that the reclaim_mode cannot deal with.  Patch
> vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch by
> Kosaki Motohiro noted that zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES) included
> pages that were not file-backed such as swapcache and made a calculation
> based on the inactive, active and mapped files. This is far superior
> when zone_reclaim==1 but if RECLAIM_SWAP is set, then NR_FILE_PAGES is a
> reasonable starting figure.
> 
> This patch alters how zone_reclaim() works out how many pages it might be
> able to reclaim given the current reclaim_mode. If RECLAIM_SWAP is set
> in the reclaim_mode it will either consider NR_FILE_PAGES as potential
> candidates or else use NR_{IN}ACTIVE}_PAGES-NR_FILE_MAPPED to discount
> swapcache and other non-file-backed pages.  If RECLAIM_WRITE is not set,
> then NR_FILE_DIRTY number of pages are not candidates. If RECLAIM_SWAP is
> not set, then NR_FILE_MAPPED are not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |   52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 2ddcfc8..2bfc76e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2333,6 +2333,41 @@ int sysctl_min_unmapped_ratio = 1;
>   */
>  int sysctl_min_slab_ratio = 5;
>  
> +static inline unsigned long zone_unmapped_file_pages(struct zone *zone)
> +{
> +	return zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> +		zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) -
> +		zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);

This may underflow if too many tmpfs pages are mapped.

> +}
> +
> +/* Work out how many page cache pages we can reclaim in this reclaim_mode */
> +static inline long zone_pagecache_reclaimable(struct zone *zone)
> +{
> +	long nr_pagecache_reclaimable;
> +	long delta = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If RECLAIM_SWAP is set, then all file pages are considered
> +	 * potentially reclaimable. Otherwise, we have to worry about
> +	 * pages like swapcache and zone_unmapped_file_pages() provides
> +	 * a better estimate
> +	 */
> +	if (zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP)
> +		nr_pagecache_reclaimable = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES);
> +	else
> +		nr_pagecache_reclaimable = zone_unmapped_file_pages(zone);
> +
> +	/* If we can't clean pages, remove dirty pages from consideration */
> +	if (!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_WRITE))
> +		delta += zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> +
> +	/* Beware of double accounting */

The double accounting happens for NR_FILE_MAPPED but not
NR_FILE_DIRTY(dirty tmpfs pages won't be accounted), so this comment
is more suitable for zone_unmapped_file_pages(). But the double
accounting does affects this abstraction. So a more reasonable
sequence could be to first substract NR_FILE_DIRTY and then
conditionally substract NR_FILE_MAPPED?

Or better to introduce a new counter NR_TMPFS_MAPPED to fix this mess?

Thanks,
Fengguang

> +	if (delta < nr_pagecache_reclaimable)
> +		nr_pagecache_reclaimable -= delta;
> +
> +	return nr_pagecache_reclaimable;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Try to free up some pages from this zone through reclaim.
>   */
> @@ -2355,7 +2390,6 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>  		.isolate_pages = isolate_pages_global,
>  	};
>  	unsigned long slab_reclaimable;
> -	long nr_unmapped_file_pages;
>  
>  	disable_swap_token();
>  	cond_resched();
> @@ -2368,11 +2402,7 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>  	reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
>  	p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
>  
> -	nr_unmapped_file_pages = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) -
> -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> -
> -	if (nr_unmapped_file_pages > zone->min_unmapped_pages) {
> +	if (zone_pagecache_reclaimable(zone) > zone->min_unmapped_pages) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Free memory by calling shrink zone with increasing
>  		 * priorities until we have enough memory freed.
> @@ -2419,8 +2449,6 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>  {
>  	int node_id;
>  	int ret;
> -	long nr_unmapped_file_pages;
> -	long nr_slab_reclaimable;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Zone reclaim reclaims unmapped file backed pages and
> @@ -2432,12 +2460,8 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>  	 * if less than a specified percentage of the zone is used by
>  	 * unmapped file backed pages.
>  	 */
> -	nr_unmapped_file_pages = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) -
> -				 zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> -	nr_slab_reclaimable = zone_page_state(zone, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE);
> -	if (nr_unmapped_file_pages <= zone->min_unmapped_pages &&
> -	    nr_slab_reclaimable <= zone->min_slab_pages)
> +	if (zone_pagecache_reclaimable(zone) <= zone->min_unmapped_pages &&
> +	    zone_page_state(zone, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE) <= zone->min_slab_pages)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone))
> -- 
> 1.5.6.5

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-06-10  1:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-09 17:01 [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] Functional fix to zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V2 Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 1/4] Properly account for the number of page cache pages zone_reclaim() can reclaim Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 18:15   ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-10  1:19   ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2009-06-10  7:31     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-10 10:31     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-10 11:59       ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-10 13:41         ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-10 22:42           ` Ram Pai
2009-06-11 13:52             ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11  1:29           ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-11  3:26         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] Do not unconditionally treat zones that fail zone_reclaim() as full Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 18:11   ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-10  1:52   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 3/4] Count the number of times zone_reclaim() scans and fails Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 18:56   ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-10  1:47   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-10 10:36     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-10  2:10   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-10 10:40     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA Mel Gorman
2009-06-10  1:53   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-10  5:54   ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-10 10:48     ` Mel Gorman

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=20090610011939.GA5603@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=yanmin.zhang@intel.com \
    /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