From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] mm: shrinker: Add new stats for .to_text()
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 12:36:08 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zs6NGGWZrw6ddDum@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240824191020.3170516-4-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 03:10:10PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Add a few new shrinker stats.
>
> number of objects requested to free, number of objects freed:
>
> Shrinkers won't necessarily free all objects requested for a variety of
> reasons, but if the two counts are wildly different something is likely
> amiss.
>
> .scan_objects runtime:
>
> If one shrinker is taking an excessive amount of time to free
> objects that will block kswapd from running other shrinkers.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
> ---
> include/linux/shrinker.h | 6 ++++++
> mm/shrinker.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/shrinker.h b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> index 6193612617a1..106622ddac77 100644
> --- a/include/linux/shrinker.h
> +++ b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> @@ -118,6 +118,12 @@ struct shrinker {
> #endif
> /* objs pending delete, per node */
> atomic_long_t *nr_deferred;
> +
> + atomic_long_t objects_requested_to_free;
> + atomic_long_t objects_freed;
> + unsigned long last_freed; /* timestamp, in jiffies */
> + unsigned long last_scanned; /* timestamp, in jiffies */
> + atomic64_t ns_run;
> };
> #define DEFAULT_SEEKS 2 /* A good number if you don't know better. */
>
> diff --git a/mm/shrinker.c b/mm/shrinker.c
> index ad52c269bb48..feaa8122afc9 100644
> --- a/mm/shrinker.c
> +++ b/mm/shrinker.c
> @@ -430,13 +430,24 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> total_scan >= freeable) {
> unsigned long ret;
> unsigned long nr_to_scan = min(batch_size, total_scan);
> + u64 start_time = ktime_get_ns();
> +
> + atomic_long_add(nr_to_scan, &shrinker->objects_requested_to_free);
>
> shrinkctl->nr_to_scan = nr_to_scan;
> shrinkctl->nr_scanned = nr_to_scan;
> ret = shrinker->scan_objects(shrinker, shrinkctl);
> +
> + atomic64_add(ktime_get_ns() - start_time, &shrinker->ns_run);
> if (ret == SHRINK_STOP)
> break;
> freed += ret;
> + unsigned long now = jiffies;
> + if (ret) {
> + atomic_long_add(ret, &shrinker->objects_freed);
> + shrinker->last_freed = now;
> + }
> + shrinker->last_scanned = now;
>
> count_vm_events(SLABS_SCANNED, shrinkctl->nr_scanned);
> total_scan -= shrinkctl->nr_scanned;
Doing this inside the tight loop (adding 3 atomics and two calls to
ktime_get_ns()) is total overkill. Such fine grained accounting
doesn't given any extra insight into behaviour compared to
accounting the entire loop once.
e.g. the actual time the shrinker takes to run is the time the whole
loop takes to run, not only the individual shrinker->scan_objects
call.
The shrinker code already calculates the total objects scanned and
the total objects freed by the entire loop, so there is no reason to
be calculating this again using much more expensive atomic
operations.
And these are diagnostic stats - the do not need to be perfectly
correct and so atomics are unnecessary overhead the vast majority of
the time. This code will have much lower impact on runtime overhead
written like this:
start_time = ktime_get_ns();
while (total_scan >= batch_size ||
total_scan >= freeable) {
.....
}
shrinker->objects_requested_to_free += scanned;
shrinker->objects_freed += freed;
end_time = ktime_get_ns();
shrinker->ns_run += end_time - start_time;
shrinker->last_scanned = end_time;
if (freed)
shrinker->last_freed = end_time;
And still give pretty much the exact same debug information without
any additional runtime overhead....
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-28 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-24 19:10 [PATCH 00/10] shrinker debugging, .to_text() report (resend) Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 01/10] seq_buf: seq_buf_human_readable_u64() Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 02/10] mm: shrinker: Add a .to_text() method for shrinkers Kent Overstreet
2024-08-26 3:01 ` Qi Zheng
2024-08-26 3:04 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-08-26 3:10 ` Qi Zheng
2024-08-26 3:32 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-08-28 3:32 ` Dave Chinner
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 03/10] mm: shrinker: Add new stats for .to_text() Kent Overstreet
2024-08-28 2:36 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2024-08-28 2:42 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 04/10] mm: Centralize & improve oom reporting in show_mem.c Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 05/10] mm: shrinker: Add shrinker_to_text() to debugfs interface Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 06/10] bcachefs: shrinker.to_text() methods Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 07/10] percpu: per_cpu_sum() Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 08/10] fs: Add super_block->s_inodes_nr Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 09/10] fs/dcache: Add per-sb accounting for nr dentries Kent Overstreet
2024-08-24 19:10 ` [PATCH 10/10] fs: super_cache_to_text() Kent Overstreet
2024-08-28 3:43 ` Dave Chinner
2024-08-28 1:51 ` [PATCH 00/10] shrinker debugging, .to_text() report (resend) Dave Chinner
2024-08-28 2:23 ` Kent Overstreet
[not found] <20240824180454.3160385-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
2024-08-24 18:04 ` [PATCH 03/10] mm: shrinker: Add new stats for .to_text() Kent Overstreet
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=Zs6NGGWZrw6ddDum@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.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