From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, =Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: workingset: ignore slab memory size when calculating shadows pressure
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 21:10:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200903211059.7dc9530e6d988eaeefe53cf7@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200903230055.1245058-1-guro@fb.com>
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:00:55 -0700 Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> In the memcg case count_shadow_nodes() sums the number of pages in lru
> lists and the amount of slab memory (reclaimable and non-reclaimable)
> as a baseline for the allowed number of shadow entries.
>
> It seems to be a good analogy for the !memcg case, where
> node_present_pages() is used. However, it's not quite true, as there
> two problems:
>
> 1) Due to slab reparenting introduced by commit fb2f2b0adb98 ("mm:
> memcg/slab: reparent memcg kmem_caches on cgroup removal") local
> per-lruvec slab counters might be inaccurate on non-leaf levels.
> It's the only place where local slab counters are used.
>
> 2) Shadow nodes by themselves are backed by slabs. So there is a loop
> dependency: the more shadow entries are there, the less pressure the
> kernel applies to reclaim them.
>
> Fortunately, there is a simple way to solve both problems: slab
> counters shouldn't be taken into the account by count_shadow_nodes().
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/workingset.c
> +++ b/mm/workingset.c
> @@ -495,10 +495,6 @@ static unsigned long count_shadow_nodes(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> for (pages = 0, i = 0; i < NR_LRU_LISTS; i++)
> pages += lruvec_page_state_local(lruvec,
> NR_LRU_BASE + i);
> - pages += lruvec_page_state_local(
> - lruvec, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - pages += lruvec_page_state_local(
> - lruvec, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> } else
> #endif
> pages = node_present_pages(sc->nid);
Did this have any observable runtime effects?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-04 4:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-03 23:00 Roman Gushchin
2020-09-04 4:10 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2020-09-04 5:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-09-09 14:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-09-09 16:55 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-09-10 17:50 ` 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=20200903211059.7dc9530e6d988eaeefe53cf7@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.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