From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de,
vbabka@suse.cz, riel@redhat.com, shakeelb@google.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
guohanjun@huawei.com, qiuxishi@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:41:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170315124117.GH32620@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1489577808-19228-1-git-send-email-xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
On Wed 15-03-17 19:36:48, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> By reviewing code, I find that when enter do_try_to_free_pages, the
> may_thrash is always clear, and it will retry shrink zones to tap
> cgroup's reserves memory by setting may_thrash when the former
> shrink_zones reclaim nothing.
>
> However, when memcg is disabled or on legacy hierarchy, or there do not
> have any memcg protected by low limit, it should not do this useless retry
> at all, for we do not have any cgroup's reserves memory to tap, and we
> have already done hard work but made no progress.
>
> To avoid this unneeded retrying, add a new field in scan_control named
> memcg_low_protection, set it if there is any memcg protected by low limit
> and only do the retry when memcg_low_protection is set while may_thrash
> is clear.
You still haven't explained why a retry is bad thing. It certainly is
not about performance because not a single page being reclaimed means
that all the performance went to hell already. Please always make it
clear why the change is needed/desirable.
But I agree that this makes the code easier to understand so I am OK
with this change.
> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
> v4:
> - add a new field in scan_control named memcg_low_protection to check whether
> there have any memcg protected by low limit. - Michal
>
> v3:
> - rename function may_thrash() to mem_cgroup_thrashed() to avoid confusing.
>
> v2:
> - more restrictive condition for retry of shrink_zones (restricting
> cgroup_disabled=memory boot option and cgroup legacy hierarchy) - Shakeel
>
> - add a stub function may_thrash() to avoid compile error or warning.
>
> - rename subject from "donot retry shrink zones when memcg is disable"
> to "more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages"
>
> Any comment is more than welcome!
>
> Thanks
> Yisheng Xie
>
> mm/vmscan.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index bc8031e..c4fa3d3 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -100,6 +100,9 @@ struct scan_control {
> /* Can cgroups be reclaimed below their normal consumption range? */
> unsigned int may_thrash:1;
>
> + /* Did we have any memcg protected by the low limit */
> + unsigned int memcg_low_protection:1;
> +
> unsigned int hibernation_mode:1;
>
> /* One of the zones is ready for compaction */
> @@ -2557,6 +2560,8 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> unsigned long scanned;
>
> if (mem_cgroup_low(root, memcg)) {
> + sc->memcg_low_protection = 1;
> +
> if (!sc->may_thrash)
> continue;
> mem_cgroup_events(memcg, MEMCG_LOW, 1);
> @@ -2808,7 +2813,7 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> return 1;
>
> /* Untapped cgroup reserves? Don't OOM, retry. */
> - if (!sc->may_thrash) {
> + if (sc->memcg_low_protection && !sc->may_thrash) {
> sc->priority = initial_priority;
> sc->may_thrash = 1;
> goto retry;
> --
> 1.7.12.4
>
--
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:[~2017-03-15 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-15 11:36 Yisheng Xie
2017-03-15 12:41 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-03-16 9:59 ` Yisheng Xie
2017-03-17 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-17 18:08 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 18:39 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-17 18:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 20:00 ` Johannes Weiner
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=20170315124117.GH32620@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=xieyisheng1@huawei.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