From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mm/vmscan: Don't change pgdat state on base of a single LRU list state.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:25:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180320152550.GZ23100@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180315164553.17856-5-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
On Thu 15-03-18 19:45:52, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> We have separate LRU list for each memory cgroup. Memory reclaim iterates
> over cgroups and calls shrink_inactive_list() every inactive LRU list.
> Based on the state of a single LRU shrink_inactive_list() may flag
> the whole node as dirty,congested or under writeback. This is obviously
> wrong and hurtful. It's especially hurtful when we have possibly
> small congested cgroup in system. Than *all* direct reclaims waste time
> by sleeping in wait_iff_congested().
I assume you have seen this in real workloads. Could you be more
specific about how you noticed the problem?
> Sum reclaim stats across all visited LRUs on node and flag node as dirty,
> congested or under writeback based on that sum. This only fixes the
> problem for global reclaim case. Per-cgroup reclaim will be addressed
> separately by the next patch.
>
> This change will also affect systems with no memory cgroups. Reclaimer
> now makes decision based on reclaim stats of the both anon and file LRU
> lists. E.g. if the file list is in congested state and get_scan_count()
> decided to reclaim some anon pages, reclaimer will start shrinking
> anon without delay in wait_iff_congested() like it was before. It seems
> to be a reasonable thing to do. Why waste time sleeping, before reclaiming
> anon given that we going to try to reclaim it anyway?
Well, if we have few anon pages in the mix then we stop throttling the
reclaim, I am afraid. I am worried this might get us kswapd hogging CPU
problems back.
[...]
> @@ -2513,6 +2473,9 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> };
> unsigned long node_lru_pages = 0;
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> + struct reclaim_stat stat = {};
> +
> + sc->stat = &stat;
>
> nr_reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
> nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> @@ -2579,6 +2542,58 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> if (sc->nr_reclaimed - nr_reclaimed)
> reclaimable = true;
>
> + /*
> + * If reclaim is isolating dirty pages under writeback, it implies
> + * that the long-lived page allocation rate is exceeding the page
> + * laundering rate. Either the global limits are not being effective
> + * at throttling processes due to the page distribution throughout
> + * zones or there is heavy usage of a slow backing device. The
> + * only option is to throttle from reclaim context which is not ideal
> + * as there is no guarantee the dirtying process is throttled in the
> + * same way balance_dirty_pages() manages.
> + *
> + * Once a node is flagged PGDAT_WRITEBACK, kswapd will count the number
> + * of pages under pages flagged for immediate reclaim and stall if any
> + * are encountered in the nr_immediate check below.
> + */
> + if (stat.nr_writeback && stat.nr_writeback == stat.nr_taken)
> + set_bit(PGDAT_WRITEBACK, &pgdat->flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * Legacy memcg will stall in page writeback so avoid forcibly
> + * stalling here.
> + */
> + if (sane_reclaim(sc)) {
> + /*
> + * Tag a node as congested if all the dirty pages scanned were
> + * backed by a congested BDI and wait_iff_congested will stall.
> + */
> + if (stat.nr_dirty && stat.nr_dirty == stat.nr_congested)
> + set_bit(PGDAT_CONGESTED, &pgdat->flags);
> +
> + /* Allow kswapd to start writing pages during reclaim. */
> + if (stat.nr_unqueued_dirty == stat.nr_taken)
> + set_bit(PGDAT_DIRTY, &pgdat->flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * If kswapd scans pages marked marked for immediate
> + * reclaim and under writeback (nr_immediate), it implies
> + * that pages are cycling through the LRU faster than
> + * they are written so also forcibly stall.
> + */
> + if (stat.nr_immediate)
> + congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Stall direct reclaim for IO completions if underlying BDIs and node
> + * is congested. Allow kswapd to continue until it starts encountering
> + * unqueued dirty pages or cycling through the LRU too quickly.
> + */
> + if (!sc->hibernation_mode && !current_is_kswapd() &&
> + current_may_throttle())
> + wait_iff_congested(pgdat, BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> +
> } while (should_continue_reclaim(pgdat, sc->nr_reclaimed - nr_reclaimed,
> sc->nr_scanned - nr_scanned, sc));
Why didn't you put the whole thing after the loop?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-20 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-15 16:45 [PATCH 1/6] mm/vmscan: Wake up flushers for legacy cgroups too Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-15 16:45 ` [PATCH 2/6] mm/vmscan: Update stale comments Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-20 15:00 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-15 16:45 ` [PATCH 3/6] mm/vmscan: replace mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive with shrink_page_list tracepoint Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-15 16:45 ` [PATCH 4/6] mm/vmscan: remove redundant current_may_throttle() check Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-20 15:11 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-15 16:45 ` [PATCH 5/6] mm/vmscan: Don't change pgdat state on base of a single LRU list state Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-20 15:25 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-03-21 10:40 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-21 11:32 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 15:57 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-15 16:45 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm/vmscan: Don't mess with pgdat->flags in memcg reclaim Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-20 15:29 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 11:14 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-21 11:43 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 17:01 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-03-15 18:57 ` [PATCH 1/6] mm/vmscan: Wake up flushers for legacy cgroups too Shakeel Butt
2018-03-20 15:00 ` 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=20180320152550.GZ23100@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=tj@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