Re: [PATCH RFC] mm, proc: add PcpFree to meminfo

Aaron Lu
2022-08-19T10:05:46Z

On 8/19/2022 5:53 PM, Liu Shixin wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/8/19 15:40, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 05:24:07PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>> On 2022/8/16 16:48, huang ying wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 4:38 PM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>> From: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The page on pcplist could be used, but not counted into memory free or
>>>>> avaliable, and pcp_free is only showed by show_mem(). Since commit
>>>>> d8a759b57035 ("mm, page_alloc: double zone's batchsize"), there is a
>>>>> significant decrease in the display of free memory, with a large number
>>>>> of cpus and nodes, the number of pages in the percpu list can be very
>>>>> large, so it is better to let user to know the pcp count.
>>>> Can you show some data?
>>> 80M+ with 72cpus/2node
>>>
>> 80M+ for a 2 node system doesn't sound like a significant number.
>>
>>>> Another choice is to count PCP free pages in MemFree. Is that OK for
>>>> your use case too?
>>> Yes, the user will make policy according to MemFree, we think count PCP free
>>> pages
>>>
>>> in MemFree is better, but don't know whether it is right way.
>>>
>> Is there a real problem where user makes a sub-optimal policy due to the
>> not accounted 80M+ free memory?
> I need to explain that 80M+ is the increased after patch d8a759b57035. Actually in my test,
> the pcplist is about 114M after system startup, and in high load scenarios, the pcplist memory
> can reach 300M+.
> The downstream has sensed the memory change after the kernel is updated, which has an
> actual impact on them. That's why I sent this patch to ask if should count this
> part of memory.
>
>> Counting PCP pages as free seems natural, since they are indeed free
>> pages. One concern is, there might be much more calls of
>> __mod_zone_freepage_state() if you do free page counting for PCP pages,
>> not sure if that would hurt performance. Also, you will need to
>> differentiate in __free_one_page() whether counting for free pages are
>> still needed since some pages are freed through PCP(and thus already
>> counted) while some are not.
> I prefer to add this part of memory into free only when calculating MemFree and
> MemAvailable, without modifying other statistics to avoid directly hurt performance
> or cause other performance problems. How about this way?
>

That sounds workable to me.

Thanks,
Aaron

>> BTW, since commit b92ca18e8ca59("mm/page_alloc: disassociate the pcp->high
>> from pcp->batch"), pcp size is no longer associated with batch size. Is
>> it that you are testing on an older kernel?
> I met the problem on stable-5.10. I think this patch can't fix the problem I met. Futher,
> this series of patch make pcp->high to be greater. So the problem becomes even more
> acute in mainline.
>
> Thanks,
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/base/node.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>>>> fs/proc/meminfo.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
>>>>> index eb0f43784c2b..846864e45db6 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
>>>>> @@ -375,6 +375,9 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct device *dev,
>>>>> struct sysinfo i;
>>>>> unsigned long sreclaimable, sunreclaimable;
>>>>> unsigned long swapcached = 0;
>>>>> + unsigned long free_pcp = 0;
>>>>> + struct zone *zone;
>>>>> + int cpu;
>>>>>
>>>>> si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
>>>>> sreclaimable = node_page_state_pages(pgdat, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
>>>>> @@ -382,9 +385,17 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct device *dev,
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SWAP
>>>>> swapcached = node_page_state_pages(pgdat, NR_SWAPCACHE);
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> + for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
>>>>> + if (zone_to_nid(zone) != nid)
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>>>>> + free_pcp += per_cpu_ptr(zone->per_cpu_pageset, cpu)->count;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> len = sysfs_emit_at(buf, len,
>>>>> "Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
>>>>> "Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
>>>>> + "Node %d PcpFree: %8lu kB\n"
>>>>> "Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
>>>>> "Node %d SwapCached: %8lu kB\n"
>>>>> "Node %d Active: %8lu kB\n"
>>>>> @@ -397,7 +408,8 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct device *dev,
>>>>> "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
>>>>> nid, K(i.totalram),
>>>>> nid, K(i.freeram),
>>>>> - nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
>>>>> + nid, K(free_pcp),
>>>>> + nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram - free_pcp),
>>>>> nid, K(swapcached),
>>>>> nid, K(node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
>>>>> node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/meminfo.c b/fs/proc/meminfo.c
>>>>> index 6e89f0e2fd20..672c784dfc8a 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/proc/meminfo.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/meminfo.c
>>>>> @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>>>> unsigned long pages[NR_LRU_LISTS];
>>>>> unsigned long sreclaimable, sunreclaim;
>>>>> int lru;
>>>>> + unsigned long free_pcp = 0;
>>>>> + struct zone *zone;
>>>>> + int cpu;
>>>>>
>>>>> si_meminfo(&i);
>>>>> si_swapinfo(&i);
>>>>> @@ -55,8 +58,14 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>>>> sreclaimable = global_node_page_state_pages(NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
>>>>> sunreclaim = global_node_page_state_pages(NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B);
>>>>>
>>>>> + for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
>>>>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>>>>> + free_pcp += per_cpu_ptr(zone->per_cpu_pageset, cpu)->count;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> show_val_kb(m, "MemTotal: ", i.totalram);
>>>>> show_val_kb(m, "MemFree: ", i.freeram);
>>>>> + show_val_kb(m, "PcpFree: ", free_pcp);
>>>>> show_val_kb(m, "MemAvailable: ", available);
>>>>> show_val_kb(m, "Buffers: ", i.bufferram);
>>>>> show_val_kb(m, "Cached: ", cached);
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.35.3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> .
>> .
>>
>