From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6034690013D for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:14:25 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] memcg: stop vmscan when enough done. Message-ID: <20110810141425.GC15007@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <20110809190450.16d7f845.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110809190933.d965888b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110809190933.d965888b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" On Tue 09-08-11 19:09:33, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > memcg :avoid node fallback scan if possible. > > Now, try_to_free_pages() scans all zonelist because the page allocator > should visit all zonelists...but that behavior is harmful for memcg. > Memcg just scans memory because it hits limit...no memory shortage > in pased zonelist. > > For example, with following unbalanced nodes > > Node 0 Node 1 > File 1G 0 > Anon 200M 200M > > memcg will cause swap-out from Node1 at every vmscan. > > Another example, assume 1024 nodes system. > With 1024 node system, memcg will visit 1024 nodes > pages per vmscan... This is overkilling. > > This is why memcg's victim node selection logic doesn't work > as expected. > > This patch is a help for stopping vmscan when we scanned enough. > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki OK, I see the point. At first I was afraid that we would make a bigger pressure on the node which triggered the reclaim but as we are selecting t dynamically (mem_cgroup_select_victim_node) - round robin at the moment - it should be fair in the end. More targeted node selection should be even more efficient. I still have a concern about resize_limit code path, though. It uses memcg direct reclaim to get under the new limit (assuming it is lower than the current one). Currently we might reclaim nr_nodes * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX while after your change we have it at SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. This means that mem_cgroup_resize_mem_limit might fail sooner on large NUMA machines (currently it is doing 5 rounds of reclaim before it gives up). I do not consider this to be blocker but maybe we should enhance mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim with a nr_pages argument to tell it how much we want to reclaim (min(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, nr_pages)). What do you think? > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > Index: mmotm-Aug3/mm/vmscan.c > =================================================================== > --- mmotm-Aug3.orig/mm/vmscan.c > +++ mmotm-Aug3/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -2124,6 +2124,16 @@ static void shrink_zones(int priority, s > } > > shrink_zone(priority, zone, sc); > + if (!scanning_global_lru(sc)) { > + /* > + * When we do scan for memcg's limit, it's bad to do > + * fallback into more node/zones because there is no > + * memory shortage. We quit as much as possible when > + * we reache target. > + */ > + if (sc->nr_to_reclaim <= sc->nr_reclaimed) > + break; > + } > } > } -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org