From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D93D6B0023 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 96so5587076wrk.12 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 03:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u5si5953026wmf.191.2018.03.23.03.08.43 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Mar 2018 03:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:08:39 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?562U5aSNOiDnrZTlpI06IFtQQVRD?= =?utf-8?Q?H=5D?= mm/memcontrol.c: speed up to force empty a memory cgroup Message-ID: <20180323100839.GO23100@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1521448170-19482-1-git-send-email-lirongqing@baidu.com> <20180319085355.GQ23100@dhcp22.suse.cz> <2AD939572F25A448A3AE3CAEA61328C23745764B@BC-MAIL-M28.internal.baidu.com> <20180319103756.GV23100@dhcp22.suse.cz> <2AD939572F25A448A3AE3CAEA61328C2374589DC@BC-MAIL-M28.internal.baidu.com> <2AD939572F25A448A3AE3CAEA61328C2374832C1@BC-MAIL-M28.internal.baidu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <2AD939572F25A448A3AE3CAEA61328C2374832C1@BC-MAIL-M28.internal.baidu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Li,Rongqing" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , Andrey Ryabinin On Fri 23-03-18 02:58:36, Li,Rongqing wrote: > > > > -----e?(R)a>>?a??a>>?----- > > a??a>>?aoo: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] a>>GBPe!? Li,Rongqing > > a??e??ae??e?': 2018a1'3ae??19ae?JPY 18:52 > > ae??a>>?aoo: Michal Hocko > > ae??e??: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org; > > cgroups@vger.kernel.org; hannes@cmpxchg.org; Andrey Ryabinin > > > > a,>>ec?: c-?a??: c-?a??: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol.c: speed up to force empty a > > memory cgroup > > > > > > > > > -----e?(R)a>>?a??a>>?----- > > > a??a>>?aoo: Michal Hocko [mailto:mhocko@kernel.org] > > > a??e??ae??e?': 2018a1'3ae??19ae?JPY 18:38 > > > ae??a>>?aoo: Li,Rongqing > > > ae??e??: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org; > > > cgroups@vger.kernel.org; hannes@cmpxchg.org; Andrey Ryabinin > > > > > > a,>>ec?: Re: c-?a??: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol.c: speed up to force empty a > > memory > > > cgroup > > > > > > On Mon 19-03-18 10:00:41, Li,Rongqing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----e?(R)a>>?a??a>>?----- > > > > > a??a>>?aoo: Michal Hocko [mailto:mhocko@kernel.org] > > > > > a??e??ae??e?': 2018a1'3ae??19ae?JPY 16:54 > > > > > ae??a>>?aoo: Li,Rongqing > > > > > ae??e??: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org; > > > > > cgroups@vger.kernel.org; hannes@cmpxchg.org; Andrey Ryabinin > > > > > > > > > > a,>>ec?: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol.c: speed up to force empty a > > > memory > > > > > cgroup > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 19-03-18 16:29:30, Li RongQing wrote: > > > > > > mem_cgroup_force_empty() tries to free only 32 > > > (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) > > > > > > pages on each iteration, if a memory cgroup has lots of page > > > > > > cache, it will take many iterations to empty all page cache, so > > > > > > increase the reclaimed number per iteration to speed it up. same > > > > > > as in > > > > > > mem_cgroup_resize_limit() > > > > > > > > > > > > a simple test show: > > > > > > > > > > > > $dd if=aaa of=bbb bs=1k count=3886080 > > > > > > $rm -f bbb > > > > > > $time echo > > > 100000000 >/cgroup/memory/test/memory.limit_in_bytes > > > > > > > > > > > > Before: 0m0.252s ===> after: 0m0.178s > > > > > > > > > > Andrey was proposing something similar [1]. My main objection was > > > > > that his approach might lead to over-reclaim. Your approach is > > > > > more conservative because it just increases the batch size. The > > > > > size is still rather arbitrary. Same as SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX but that > > > > > one is a commonly used unit of reclaim in the MM code. > > > > > > > > > > I would be really curious about more detailed explanation why > > > > > having a larger batch yields to a better performance because we > > > > > are doingg SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX batches at the lower reclaim level > > anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX is used at the lower level, but the call > > > > stack of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages is too long, increase the > > > > nr_to_reclaim can reduce times of calling > > > > function[do_try_to_free_pages, shrink_zones, hrink_node ] > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_resize_limit > > > > --->try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages: .nr_to_reclaim = max(1024, > > > > --->SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX), > > > > ---> do_try_to_free_pages > > > > ---> shrink_zones > > > > --->shrink_node > > > > ---> shrink_node_memcg > > > > ---> shrink_list <-------loop will happen in this place > > > [times=1024/32] > > > > ---> shrink_page_list > > > > > > Can you actually measure this to be the culprit. Because we should > > > rethink our call path if it is too complicated/deep to perform well. > > > Adding arbitrary batch sizes doesn't sound like a good way to go to me. > > > > Ok, I will try > > > http://pasted.co/4edbcfff > > This is result from ftrace graph, it maybe prove that the deep call > path leads to low performance. Does it? Let's have a look at the condensed output: 6) | try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() { 6) | mem_cgroup_select_victim_node() { 6) 0.320 us | mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(); 6) 0.151 us | mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(); 6) 2.190 us | } 6) | do_try_to_free_pages() { 6) | shrink_node() { 6) | shrink_node_memcg() { 6) | shrink_inactive_list() { 6) + 23.131 us | shrink_page_list(); 6) + 33.960 us | } 6) + 39.203 us | } 6) | shrink_slab() { 6) + 72.955 us | } 6) ! 116.529 us | } 6) | shrink_node() { 6) 0.050 us | mem_cgroup_iter(); 6) 0.035 us | mem_cgroup_low(); 6) | shrink_node_memcg() { 6) 3.955 us | } 6) | shrink_slab() { 6) + 54.296 us | } 6) + 61.502 us | } 6) ! 185.020 us | } 6) ! 188.165 us | } try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages is the full memcg reclaim path taking 188,165 us. The pure reclaim path is shrink_node and that took 116+61 = 177 us. So we have 11us spent on the way. Is this really making such a difference? How does the profile look when we do larger batches? > And when increase reclaiming page in try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages, it > can reduce calling of shrink_slab, which save times, in my cases, page > caches occupy most memory, slab is little, but shrink_slab will be > called everytime OK, that makes more sense! shrink_slab is clearly visible here. It is more expensive than the page reclaim. This is something to look into. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs