linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Kernel-team@fb.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC] put more pressure on proc/sysfs slab shrink
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 10:00:07 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161021230007.GV23194@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bca13f1ae6a72f0d126cd7e9ede11baaa2b81064.1477081587.git.shli@fb.com>

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:35:14PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> In our systems, proc/sysfs inode/dentry cache use more than 1G memory
> even memory pressure is high sometimes. Since proc/sysfs is in-memory
> filesystem, rebuilding the cache is fast. There is no point proc/sysfs
> and disk fs have equal pressure for slab shrink.
> 
> One idea is directly discarding proc/sysfs inode/dentry cache rightly
> after the proc/sysfs file is closed. But the discarding will make
> proc/sysfs file open slower next time, which is 20x slower in my test if
> multiple applications are accessing proc files. This patch doesn't go
> that far. Instead, just put more pressure to shrink proc/sysfs slabs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
> ---
>  fs/kernfs/mount.c | 2 ++
>  fs/proc/inode.c   | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/kernfs/mount.c b/fs/kernfs/mount.c
> index d5b149a..5b4e747 100644
> --- a/fs/kernfs/mount.c
> +++ b/fs/kernfs/mount.c
> @@ -161,6 +161,8 @@ static int kernfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long magic)
>  	sb->s_xattr = kernfs_xattr_handlers;
>  	sb->s_time_gran = 1;
>  
> +	sb->s_shrink.seeks = 1;
> +	sb->s_shrink.batch = 0;

This sort of thing needs comments as to why they are being changed.
Otherwise the next person who comes along to do shrinker
modifications won't have a clue about why this magic exists.

Also, I don't think s_shrink.batch = 0 does what you think it does.
The superblock batch size default of 1024 is more efficient than
setting sb->s_shrink.batch = 0 as that makes the shrinker use
SHRINK_BATCH:

#define SHRINK_BATCH 128

i.e. it does less work per batch so has more overhead....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

      reply	other threads:[~2016-10-21 23:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-21 20:35 [RFC] put more pressure on proc/sysfs slab shrink Shaohua Li
2016-10-21 23:00 ` Dave Chinner [this message]

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=20161021230007.GV23194@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shli@fb.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).