From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f71.google.com (mail-pg0-f71.google.com [74.125.83.71])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693376B0008
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:52:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id y10so8831905pge.2
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id h192sor165006pfc.73.2018.03.19.10.51.59
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D=3A_=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D=3A_=5BPATCH=5D_mm=2Fmemcontrol=2Ec=3A_speed_up_to_force_empty_a_memory_cgroup?=
In-Reply-To: <2AD939572F25A448A3AE3CAEA61328C2374589DC@BC-MAIL-M28.internal.baidu.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803191044310.177918@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@baidu.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, "hannes@cmpxchg.org" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Li,Rongqing wrote:

> > > 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
> 

Looping in mem_cgroup_resize_limit(), which takes memcg_limit_mutex on 
every iteration which contends with lowering limits in other cgroups (on 
our systems, thousands), calling try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() with less 
than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX is lame.  It would probably be best to limit the 
nr_pages to the amount that needs to be reclaimed, though, rather than 
over reclaiming.

If you wanted to be invasive, you could change page_counter_limit() to 
return the count - limit, fix up the callers that look for -EBUSY, and 
then use max(val, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) as your nr_pages.