linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
	Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@google.com>,
	juno.choi@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] zram: add swap full hint
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:11:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140922141118.de46ae5e54099cf2b39c8c5b@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411344191-2842-5-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:03:10 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:

> This patch implement SWAP_FULL handler in zram so that VM can
> know whether zram is full or not and use it to stop anonymous
> page reclaim.
> 
> How to judge fullness is below,
> 
> fullness = (100 * used space / total space)
> 
> It means the higher fullness is, the slower we reach zram full.
> Now, default of fullness is 80 so that it biased more momory
> consumption rather than early OOM kill.

It's unclear to me why this is being done.  What's wrong with "use it
until it's full then stop", which is what I assume the current code
does?  Why add this stuff?  What goes wrong with the current code and
how does this fix it?

ie: better explanation and justification in the chagnelogs, please.

> Above logic works only when used space of zram hit over the limit
> but zram also pretend to be full once 32 consecutive allocation
> fail happens. It's safe guard to prevent system hang caused by
> fragment uncertainty.

So allocation requests are of variable size, yes?  If so, the above
statement should read "32 consecutive allocation attempts for regions
or size 2 or more slots".  Because a failure of a single-slot
allocation attempt is an immediate failure.

The 32-in-a-row thing sounds like a hack.  Why can't we do this
deterministically?  If one request for four slots fails then the next
one will as well, so why bother retrying?

> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,20 @@ static const char *default_compressor = "lzo";
>  /* Module params (documentation at end) */
>  static unsigned int num_devices = 1;
>  
> +/*
> + * If (100 * used_pages / total_pages) >= ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT),
> + * we regards it as zram-full. It means that the higher
> + * ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT is, the slower we reach zram full.
> + */

I just don't understand this patch :( To me, the above implies that the
user who sets 80% has elected to never use 20% of the zram capacity. 
Why on earth would anyone do that?  This chagnelog doesn't tell me.

> +#define ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT 80

We've had problems in the past where 1% is just too large an increment
for large systems.

> @@ -597,10 +613,15 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
>  	}
>  
>  	alloced_pages = zs_get_total_pages(meta->mem_pool);
> -	if (zram->limit_pages && alloced_pages > zram->limit_pages) {
> -		zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
> -		ret = -ENOMEM;
> -		goto out;
> +	if (zram->limit_pages) {
> +		if (alloced_pages > zram->limit_pages) {

This is all a bit racy, isn't it?  pool->pages_allocated and
zram->limit_pages could be changing under our feet.

> +			zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
> +			atomic_inc(&zram->alloc_fail);
> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto out;
> +		} else {
> +			atomic_set(&zram->alloc_fail, 0);
> +		}
 	}
 
 	update_used_max(zram, alloced_pages);

> @@ -711,6 +732,7 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool reset_capacity)
>  	down_write(&zram->init_lock);
>  
>  	zram->limit_pages = 0;
> +	atomic_set(&zram->alloc_fail, 0);
>  
>  	if (!init_done(zram)) {
>  		up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> @@ -944,6 +966,34 @@ static int zram_slot_free_notify(struct block_device *bdev,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int zram_full(struct block_device *bdev, void *arg)

This could return a bool.  That implies that zram_swap_hint should
return bool too, but as we haven't been told what the zram_swap_hint
return value does, I'm a bit stumped.

And why include the unusefully-named "void *arg"?  It doesn't get used here.

> +{
> +	struct zram *zram;
> +	struct zram_meta *meta;
> +	unsigned long total_pages, compr_pages;
> +
> +	zram = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> +	if (!zram->limit_pages)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	meta = zram->meta;
> +	total_pages = zs_get_total_pages(meta->mem_pool);
> +
> +	if (total_pages >= zram->limit_pages) {
> +
> +		compr_pages = atomic64_read(&zram->stats.compr_data_size)
> +					>> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +		if ((100 * compr_pages / total_pages)
> +			>= ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT)
> +			return 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (atomic_read(&zram->alloc_fail) > ALLOC_FAIL_MAX)
> +		return 1;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int zram_swap_hint(struct block_device *bdev,
>  				unsigned int hint, void *arg)
>  {

--
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:[~2014-09-22 21:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-22  0:03 [PATCH v1 0/5] stop anon reclaim when zram is full Minchan Kim
2014-09-22  0:03 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] zram: generalize swap_slot_free_notify Minchan Kim
2014-09-22 20:41   ` Andrew Morton
2014-09-23  4:45     ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-22  0:03 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] mm: add full variable in swap_info_struct Minchan Kim
2014-09-22 20:45   ` Andrew Morton
2014-09-23  4:45     ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-24  2:53   ` Dan Streetman
2014-09-24  7:57     ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-22  0:03 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] mm: VM can be aware of zram fullness Minchan Kim
2014-09-24 14:12   ` Dan Streetman
2014-09-25  1:06     ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-25  1:31       ` Dan Streetman
2014-09-22  0:03 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] zram: add swap full hint Minchan Kim
2014-09-22 21:11   ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2014-09-23  4:56     ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-23 21:17       ` Andrew Morton
2014-09-24  7:57         ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-24 15:10         ` Jerome Marchand
2014-09-25  1:07           ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-24 14:01   ` Dan Streetman
2014-09-25  1:02     ` Minchan Kim
2014-09-25 15:52       ` Dan Streetman
2014-10-06 23:36         ` Minchan Kim
2014-10-06 23:46           ` Minchan Kim
2014-10-08 18:29             ` Dan Streetman
2014-09-22  0:03 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] zram: add fullness knob to control swap full Minchan Kim
2014-09-22 21:17   ` Andrew Morton
2014-09-23  4:57     ` Minchan Kim
2014-12-02  3:04 ` [PATCH v1 0/5] stop anon reclaim when zram is full Minchan Kim

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=20140922141118.de46ae5e54099cf2b39c8c5b@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ddstreet@ieee.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=jmarchan@redhat.com \
    --cc=juno.choi@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=ngupta@vflare.org \
    --cc=semenzato@google.com \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    --cc=shli@kernel.org \
    /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