From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: Do not account hugetlb pages as NR_FILE_PAGES
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 15:35:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150522143558.GA2462@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150522142143.GF5109@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 04:21:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 21-05-15 13:09:09, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:27:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > hugetlb pages uses add_to_page_cache to track shared mappings. This
> > > is OK from the data structure point of view but it is less so from the
> > > NR_FILE_PAGES accounting:
> > > - huge pages are accounted as 4k which is clearly wrong
> > > - this counter is used as the amount of the reclaimable page
> > > cache which is incorrect as well because hugetlb pages are
> > > special and not reclaimable
> > > - the counter is then exported to userspace via /proc/meminfo
> > > (in Cached:), /proc/vmstat and /proc/zoneinfo as
> > > nr_file_pages which is confusing at least:
> > > Cached: 8883504 kB
> > > HugePages_Free: 8348
> > > ...
> > > Cached: 8916048 kB
> > > HugePages_Free: 156
> > > ...
> > > thats 8192 huge pages allocated which is ~16G accounted as 32M
> > >
> > > There are usually not that many huge pages in the system for this to
> > > make any visible difference e.g. by fooling __vm_enough_memory or
> > > zone_pagecache_reclaimable.
> > >
> > > Fix this by special casing huge pages in both __delete_from_page_cache
> > > and __add_to_page_cache_locked. replace_page_cache_page is currently
> > > only used by fuse and that shouldn't touch hugetlb pages AFAICS but it
> > > is more robust to check for special casing there as well.
> > >
> > > Hugetlb pages shouldn't get to any other paths where we do accounting:
> > > - migration - we have a special handling via
> > > hugetlbfs_migrate_page
> > > - shmem - doesn't handle hugetlb pages directly even for
> > > SHM_HUGETLB resp. MAP_HUGETLB
> > > - swapcache - hugetlb is not swapable
> > >
> > > This has a user visible effect but I believe it is reasonable because
> > > the previously exported number is simply bogus.
> > >
> > > An alternative would be to account hugetlb pages with their real size
> > > and treat them similar to shmem. But this has some drawbacks.
> > >
> > > First we would have to special case in kernel users of NR_FILE_PAGES and
> > > considering how hugetlb is special we would have to do it everywhere. We
> > > do not want Cached exported by /proc/meminfo to include it because the
> > > value would be even more misleading.
> > > __vm_enough_memory and zone_pagecache_reclaimable would have to do
> > > the same thing because those pages are simply not reclaimable. The
> > > correction is even not trivial because we would have to consider all
> > > active hugetlb page sizes properly. Users of the counter outside of the
> > > kernel would have to do the same.
> > > So the question is why to account something that needs to be basically
> > > excluded for each reasonable usage. This doesn't make much sense to me.
> > >
> > > It seems that this has been broken since hugetlb was introduced but I
> > > haven't checked the whole history.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> >
> > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>
> Thanks!
>
> > This makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing I worry about is the
> > proliferation of PageHuge(), a function call, in relatively hot paths.
>
> I've tried that (see the patch below) but it enlarged the code by almost
> 1k
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 510323 74273 44440 629036 9992c mm/built-in.o.before
> 511248 74273 44440 629961 99cc9 mm/built-in.o.after
>
> I am not sure the code size increase is worth it. Maybe we can reduce
> the check to only PageCompound(page) as huge pages are no in the page
> cache (yet).
>
That would be a more sensible route because it also avoids exposing the
hugetlbfs destructor unnecessarily.
--
Mel Gorman
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:[~2015-05-22 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-21 13:27 Michal Hocko
2015-05-21 13:52 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-21 16:18 ` Mike Kravetz
2015-05-22 6:01 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-21 17:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-05-22 14:21 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-22 14:28 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-22 14:35 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2015-05-25 15:24 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-06-02 9:25 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-02 9:33 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-06-02 9:38 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-02 10:00 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-22 5:09 ` Naoya Horiguchi
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=20150522143558.GA2462@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.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