From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B65C43613 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4064205C9 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="CwIlQp4w" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F4064205C9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4F7EB6B0003; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4A8278E0003; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:31:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 36FAD8E0002; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:31:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-io1-f72.google.com (mail-io1-f72.google.com [209.85.166.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A656B0003 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 08:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io1-f72.google.com with SMTP id b197so21657150iof.12 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:31:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:dkim-signature:mime-version:references :in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SPpr63Rz4YJvRewRSPx1O8afMbQp5WdeiR1AEOsFoLo=; b=V6aeNbt9hppQahoy1Oh442bV5XmHzetvpGD5w+aGyxs1nk/Ay18E9wSEhYlyFLOF22 3Ong5owP8+9BQT+DmGBq3P98aq8bSGvPmgvU/28+D/XUzg8ee/2had9v2LDSpIBECaz1 qv5xmSDIYNjre695KDzkwRAxTqt0pdDBTsglB2ckFPepZosLGrHbNT3pLl7nlQfe0mtI EO78IQbEz+xtt9ZFVAdAIXoWWWbqE0vZQ6jUaRcd/45p8TtS7sgIWPGKg173v5gI0OEJ KReiIwcrnbBLOXcFEo11Vlk4RFZGRKsZMwlOdFrl8CzYJqSL8068sc8Sv2CYikpEjvfR rBtA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWe4dkecnlUEzSvUnZ5KJ/nJKmbLl4PbafQW2TSKaY0u+Ws7JU mh0DuhNfVnAdWiupzD48USKu6JCJB8Lm1CgJBlL8am90zev4E4xkRY2SgFDFj/sJls16mtkzolM /atDTXdRFFj6A6hVd0f/oKpHcNMP/ajJ7UIzxdBJtQzZwfjsH/RcYiUByja1PtqTDOQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8845:: with SMTP id t5mr7869414ios.37.1561379489775; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8845:: with SMTP id t5mr7869329ios.37.1561379488716; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:31:28 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1561379488; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DCfg6Z8TXN7lzM6szoIuHU3b+t7fKVr7RPbAUNrwryUW/OpRN2JW2ohsMgAI32DvxW YpCJAg12fyquXEhF3bPN5MYkb+TDIQ/xq+w/LXcGWQc1r/UnMIPz1ceN6X7lgD+5SHwb rcSK2HAslizcHWdf0fVbLcSW+ZuZdg7YLpM+e5Cpp/mq89RA3kijWs5lLKtjkEbUq3bD 44YbiFlTeQniOV2SijAKJlEviV/ltsJdqZiI/0VrWNabiEWxEx8/gU1vz0G01nK/aUcd JpkbxtNfOINua0EJqqq1l83Z7mfkjiqf2HzvObI1ii+3kF1zpdj5fFst2ySShZILMCSr Caig== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=SPpr63Rz4YJvRewRSPx1O8afMbQp5WdeiR1AEOsFoLo=; b=McCnecFi1tIZR6WlJ9fBI0UnHg/sfdX4xGCJMRSwJOZcaodPkYqfUVHU6K+JUlYQcl sCJ/1nyshFNGDeFuWTm/romZSnbJjnD28+BZuN/w54fe4sp0WT+BVF2A/yac5RR4ZFLo 2YPwg/JKig8jTCiz82Ypc2WbI670hdIX24/kFEkOhJloJT6JLzBpLGCf8vVIk8EplIFL wMQYrXcNw/PGwNQ+CmpcO77lpn3WtvQs4ZeMjw0PBnFqHrCZN3s21WkXjEIr+deAkqh1 OsmJCB43qXWRE7Rw9I064Tw4MbxXwU+RB7t2Cb5Pjh50DC/ts8alSuiN9KECIAYpc686 klrQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=CwIlQp4w; spf=pass (google.com: domain of laoar.shao@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=laoar.shao@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id j128sor7474407iof.121.2019.06.24.05.31.28 for (Google Transport Security); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of laoar.shao@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=CwIlQp4w; spf=pass (google.com: domain of laoar.shao@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=laoar.shao@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SPpr63Rz4YJvRewRSPx1O8afMbQp5WdeiR1AEOsFoLo=; b=CwIlQp4wsbdhZpJdnB3i/8eVegRvLVtuNue2CUIgC2zZhURu+4qjjtEppEAyeTgodz avzKVdzBfgCFDxQs+MMz9Re5NgK6X9xRhtC1pFTPjZ3sB5ejnKvIgj6NFTbcvjFD80nj dTFAUR9Y3dEmIjsKUuZjH4S/6NxEauWVrpJx8uCd5221CNYwzawb5BvxRTRGXJ8/bR44 e51TESJ5T56ZaGYhQGe0w8HWdw/gqiN/rxwT8ASgjQN0pFyWh4V2oarEnZl+7b9YEI8K 8AQmu1kQllZpUJrd13n31Ip0Ro9bw9bX5zpjEempiarbThkdvwInO7u/AaLeV1HZsceq Ni0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwnos6OGaU1t/0EF7NmK7rTGbuKtLIyuF2T+0asFy12QGoDJbHajjGoGvCWuXqFmhChXww3TjnzJIWrINziPIk= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9282:: with SMTP id s2mr9035239iom.36.1561379488232; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:31:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1561112086-6169-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <1561112086-6169-3-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Yafang Shao Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:30:12 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/vmscan: calculate reclaimed slab caches in all reclaim paths To: Kirill Tkhai Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Mel Gorman , Linux MM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > On 21.06.2019 13:14, Yafang Shao wrote: > > There're six different reclaim paths by now, > > - kswapd reclaim path > > - node reclaim path > > - hibernate preallocate memory reclaim path > > - direct reclaim path > > - memcg reclaim path > > - memcg softlimit reclaim path > > > > The slab caches reclaimed in these paths are only calculated in the above > > three paths. > > > > There're some drawbacks if we don't calculate the reclaimed slab caches. > > - The sc->nr_reclaimed isn't correct if there're some slab caches > > relcaimed in this path. > > - The slab caches may be reclaimed thoroughly if there're lots of > > reclaimable slab caches and few page caches. > > Let's take an easy example for this case. > > If one memcg is full of slab caches and the limit of it is 512M, in > > other words there're approximately 512M slab caches in this memcg. > > Then the limit of the memcg is reached and the memcg reclaim begins, > > and then in this memcg reclaim path it will continuesly reclaim the > > slab caches until the sc->priority drops to 0. > > After this reclaim stops, you will find there're few slab caches left, > > which is less than 20M in my test case. > > While after this patch applied the number is greater than 300M and > > the sc->priority only drops to 3. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 18a66e5..d6c3fc8 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -3164,11 +3164,13 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order, > > if (throttle_direct_reclaim(sc.gfp_mask, zonelist, nodemask)) > > return 1; > > > > + current->reclaim_state = &sc.reclaim_state; > > trace_mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_begin(order, sc.gfp_mask); > > > > nr_reclaimed = do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, &sc); > > > > trace_mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_end(nr_reclaimed); > > + current->reclaim_state = NULL; > > Shouldn't we remove reclaim_state assignment from __perform_reclaim() after this? > Oh yes. We should remove it. Thanks for pointing out. I will post a fix soon. Thanks Yafang > > return nr_reclaimed; > > } > > @@ -3191,6 +3193,7 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > }; > > unsigned long lru_pages; > > > > + current->reclaim_state = &sc.reclaim_state; > > sc.gfp_mask = (gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) | > > (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK); > > > > @@ -3212,7 +3215,9 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > cgroup_ino(memcg->css.cgroup), > > sc.nr_reclaimed); > > > > + current->reclaim_state = NULL; > > *nr_scanned = sc.nr_scanned; > > + > > return sc.nr_reclaimed; > > } > > > > @@ -3239,6 +3244,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > .may_shrinkslab = 1, > > }; > > > > + current->reclaim_state = &sc.reclaim_state; > > /* > > * Unlike direct reclaim via alloc_pages(), memcg's reclaim doesn't > > * take care of from where we get pages. So the node where we start the > > @@ -3263,6 +3269,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > trace_mm_vmscan_memcg_reclaim_end( > > cgroup_ino(memcg->css.cgroup), > > nr_reclaimed); > > + current->reclaim_state = NULL; > > > > return nr_reclaimed; > > } > > >