From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by cgroups optimization in 3.17-rc2
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:27:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140904142721.GB14548@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54062F32.5070504@sr71.net>
[Sorry to reply so late]
On Tue 02-09-14 13:57:22, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I, of course, forgot to include the most important detail. This appears
> to be pretty run-of-the-mill spinlock contention in the resource counter
> code. Nearly 80% of the CPU is spent spinning in the charge or uncharge
> paths in the kernel. It is apparently spinning on res_counter->lock in
> both the charge and uncharge paths.
>
> It already does _some_ batching here on the free side, but that
> apparently breaks down after ~40 threads.
>
> It's a no-brainer since the patch in question removed an optimization
> skipping the charging, and now we're seeing overhead from the charging.
>
> Here's the first entry from perf top:
>
> 80.18% 80.18% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> |
> --- _raw_spin_lock
> |
> |--66.59%-- res_counter_uncharge_until
> | res_counter_uncharge
> | uncharge_batch
> | uncharge_list
> | mem_cgroup_uncharge_list
> | release_pages
> | free_pages_and_swap_cache
Ouch. free_pages_and_swap_cache completely kills the uncharge batching
because it reduces it to PAGEVEC_SIZE batches.
I think we really do not need PAGEVEC_SIZE batching anymore. We are
already batching on tlb_gather layer. That one is limited so I think
the below should be safe but I have to think about this some more. There
is a risk of prolonged lru_lock wait times but the number of pages is
limited to 10k and the heavy work is done outside of the lock. If this
is really a problem then we can tear LRU part and the actual
freeing/uncharging into a separate functions in this path.
Could you test with this half baked patch, please? I didn't get to test
it myself unfortunately.
---
diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c
index ef1f39139b71..154444918685 100644
--- a/mm/swap_state.c
+++ b/mm/swap_state.c
@@ -265,18 +265,12 @@ void free_page_and_swap_cache(struct page *page)
void free_pages_and_swap_cache(struct page **pages, int nr)
{
struct page **pagep = pages;
+ int i;
lru_add_drain();
- while (nr) {
- int todo = min(nr, PAGEVEC_SIZE);
- int i;
-
- for (i = 0; i < todo; i++)
- free_swap_cache(pagep[i]);
- release_pages(pagep, todo, false);
- pagep += todo;
- nr -= todo;
- }
+ for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
+ free_swap_cache(pagep[i]);
+ release_pages(pagep, nr, false);
}
/*
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-04 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-02 19:05 Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 20:18 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 20:57 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 14:27 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2014-09-04 20:27 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 22:53 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-05 9:28 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 9:25 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 14:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-05 15:39 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 16:29 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 16:57 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-10 17:05 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 12:35 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-08 15:47 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-09 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-09 18:23 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 22:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-02 22:36 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03 0:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-03 0:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-09-03 1:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-03 3:15 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03 0:30 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 15:08 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-04 20:50 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-05 8:04 ` 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=20140904142721.GB14548@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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