linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:57:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130529155756.GH10224@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130529130538.GD10224@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Wed 29-05-13 15:05:38, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 27-05-13 19:13:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > Nevertheless I have encountered an issue while testing the huge number
> > of groups scenario. And the issue is not limitted to only to this
> > scenario unfortunately. As memcg iterators use per node-zone-priority
> > cache to prevent from over reclaim it might quite easily happen that
> > the walk will not visit all groups and will terminate the loop either
> > prematurely or skip some groups. An example could be the direct reclaim
> > racing with kswapd. This might cause that the loop misses over limit
> > groups so no pages are scanned and so we will fall back to all groups
> > reclaim.
> 
> And after some more testing and head scratching it turned out that
> fallbacks to pass#2 I was seeing are caused by something else. It is
> not race between iterators but rather reclaiming from zone DMA which
> has troubles to scan anything despite there are pages on LRU and so we
> fall back. I have to look into that more but what-ever the issue is it
> shouldn't be related to the patch series.

Think I know what is going on. get_scan_count sees relatively small
amount of pages in the lists (around 2k). This means that get_scan_count
will tell us to scan nothing for DEF_PRIORITY (as the DMA32 is usually
~16M) then the DEF_PRIORITY is basically no-op and we have to wait and
fall down to a priority which actually let us scan something.

Hmm, maybe ignoring soft reclaim for DMA zone would help to reduce
one pointless loop over groups.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-29 15:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-13  7:46 [patch v3 0/3 -mm] Soft limit rework Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46 ` [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code Michal Hocko
2013-05-15  8:34   ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-16 22:12   ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-16 22:15     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17  7:16       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:12     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17 16:02   ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-17 16:57     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17 17:27       ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-17 17:45         ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-20 14:44     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-21  6:53       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` [PATCH 1/3] memcg: track children in soft limit excess to improve soft limit Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` [PATCH 2/3] memcg, vmscan: Do not attempt soft limit reclaim if it would not scan anything Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` [PATCH 3/3] memcg: Track all children over limit in the root Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:20       ` [PATCH] memcg: enhance memcg iterator to support predicates Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 13:05       ` [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 15:57         ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2013-05-29 20:01           ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-30  8:45             ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 14:54       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-30  8:36         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46 ` [patch v3 -mm 2/3] memcg: Get rid of soft-limit tree infrastructure Michal Hocko
2013-05-15  8:38   ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-16 22:16   ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-13  7:46 ` [patch v3 -mm 3/3] vmscan, memcg: Do softlimit reclaim also for targeted reclaim Michal Hocko
2013-05-15  8:42   ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-17  7:50     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-16 23:12   ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17  7:34     ` Michal Hocko

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=20130529155756.GH10224@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=walken@google.com \
    --cc=yinghan@google.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