From: Zhu Yanhai <zhu.yanhai@gmail.com>
To: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 07/10] Add per-memcg zone "unreclaimable"
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:13:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAC8teKWxdRFBPw1DLABCrwBoEcuyk5NqD1+=TW6qchaK_8hcoQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALWz4iy+0VkNJx-KzmMRnWr656RNU7+xEJjiKeF05VT9Gfv=Vg@mail.gmail.com>
2012/3/20 Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Zhu Yanhai <zhu.yanhai@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/4/15 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:54:26 -0700
>>> Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After reclaiming each node per memcg, it checks mem_cgroup_watermark_ok()
>>>> and breaks the priority loop if it returns true. The per-memcg zone will
>>>> be marked as "unreclaimable" if the scanning rate is much greater than the
>>>> reclaiming rate on the per-memcg LRU. The bit is cleared when there is a
>>>> page charged to the memcg being freed. Kswapd breaks the priority loop if
>>>> all the zones are marked as "unreclaimable".
>>>>
>>>> changelog v4..v3:
>>>> 1. split off from the per-memcg background reclaim patch in V3.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 30 ++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/swap.h | 2 +
>>>> mm/memcontrol.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> mm/vmscan.c | 19 +++++++++
>>>> 4 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>> index d4ff7f2..a8159f5 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>> @@ -155,6 +155,12 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_dec_page_stat(struct page *page,
>>>> unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
>>>> gfp_t gfp_mask);
>>>> u64 mem_cgroup_get_limit(struct mem_cgroup *mem);
>>>> +void mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct page *page);
>>>> +bool mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int nid, int zid);
>>>> +bool mem_cgroup_mz_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct zone *zone);
>>>> +void mem_cgroup_mz_set_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct zone *zone);
>>>> +void mem_cgroup_mz_pages_scanned(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct zone* zone,
>>>> + unsigned long nr_scanned);
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>>> void mem_cgroup_split_huge_fixup(struct page *head, struct page *tail);
>>>> @@ -345,6 +351,25 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_dec_page_stat(struct page *page,
>>>> {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline void mem_cgroup_mz_pages_scanned(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>>>> + struct zone *zone,
>>>> + unsigned long nr_scanned)
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable(struct page *page,
>>>> + struct zone *zone)
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>> +static inline void mem_cgroup_mz_set_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>>>> + struct zone *zone)
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_mz_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>>>> + struct zone *zone)
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static inline
>>>> unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
>>>> gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>>> @@ -363,6 +388,11 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_split_huge_fixup(struct page *head,
>>>> {
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int nid,
>>>> + int zid)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return false;
>>>> +}
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT */
>>>>
>>>> #if !defined(CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR) || !defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM)
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> index 17e0511..319b800 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> @@ -160,6 +160,8 @@ enum {
>>>> SWP_SCANNING = (1 << 8), /* refcount in scan_swap_map */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +#define ZONE_RECLAIMABLE_RATE 6
>>>> +
>>>> #define SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX 32
>>>> #define COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> index e22351a..da6a130 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> @@ -133,7 +133,10 @@ struct mem_cgroup_per_zone {
>>>> bool on_tree;
>>>> struct mem_cgroup *mem; /* Back pointer, we cannot */
>>>> /* use container_of */
>>>> + unsigned long pages_scanned; /* since last reclaim */
>>>> + bool all_unreclaimable; /* All pages pinned */
>>>> };
>>>> +
>>>> /* Macro for accessing counter */
>>>> #define MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, idx) ((mz)->count[(idx)])
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1135,6 +1138,96 @@ mem_cgroup_get_reclaim_stat_from_page(struct page *page)
>>>> return &mz->reclaim_stat;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static unsigned long mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable_pages(
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int nr;
>>>> + nr = MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE) +
>>>> + MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (nr_swap_pages > 0)
>>>> + nr += MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON) +
>>>> + MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON);
>>>> +
>>>> + return nr;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void mem_cgroup_mz_pages_scanned(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct zone* zone,
>>>> + unsigned long nr_scanned)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz = NULL;
>>>> + int nid = zone_to_nid(zone);
>>>> + int zid = zone_idx(zone);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mem)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(mem, nid, zid);
>>>> + if (mz)
>>>> + mz->pages_scanned += nr_scanned;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +bool mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int nid, int zid)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz = NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mem)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(mem, nid, zid);
>>>> + if (mz)
>>>> + return mz->pages_scanned <
>>>> + mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable_pages(mz) *
>>>> + ZONE_RECLAIMABLE_RATE;
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +bool mem_cgroup_mz_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct zone *zone)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz = NULL;
>>>> + int nid = zone_to_nid(zone);
>>>> + int zid = zone_idx(zone);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mem)
>>>> + return false;
>>>> +
>>>> + mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(mem, nid, zid);
>>>> + if (mz)
>>>> + return mz->all_unreclaimable;
>>>> +
>>>> + return false;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void mem_cgroup_mz_set_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct zone *zone)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz = NULL;
>>>> + int nid = zone_to_nid(zone);
>>>> + int zid = zone_idx(zone);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mem)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(mem, nid, zid);
>>>> + if (mz)
>>>> + mz->all_unreclaimable = true;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct page *page)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz = NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mem)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(mem, page);
>>>> + if (mz) {
>>>> + mz->pages_scanned = 0;
>>>> + mz->all_unreclaimable = false;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> unsigned long mem_cgroup_isolate_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>>>> struct list_head *dst,
>>>> unsigned long *scanned, int order,
>>>> @@ -2801,6 +2894,7 @@ __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common(struct page *page, enum charge_type ctype)
>>>> * special functions.
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> + mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable(mem, page);
>>>
>>> Hmm, this will easily cause cache ping-pong. (free_page() clears it after taking
>>> zone->lock....in batched manner.)
>>>
>>> Could you consider a way to make this low cost ?
>>>
>>> One way is using memcg_check_event() with some low event trigger.
>>> Second way is usign memcg_batch.
>>> In many case, we can expect a chunk of free pages are from the same zone.
>>> Then, add a new member to batch_memcg as
>>>
>>> struct memcg_batch_info {
>>> .....
>>> struct zone *zone; # a zone page is last uncharged.
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> Then,
>>> ==
>>> static void mem_cgroup_do_uncharge(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>>> unsigned int nr_pages,
>>> + struct page *page,
>>> const enum charge_type ctype)
>>> {
>>> struct memcg_batch_info *batch = NULL;
>>> .....
>>>
>>> if (batch->zone != page_zone(page)) {
>>> mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable(mem, page);
>>> }
>>> direct_uncharge:
>>> mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable(mem, page);
>>> ....
>>> }
>>> ==
>>>
>>> This will reduce overhead dramatically.
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me but I don't quite understand this part, IMHO this is to
>> avoid call mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable() against each single page
>> during a munmap()/free_pages() including many pages to free, which is
>> unnecessary because the zone will turn into 'reclaimable' at the first
>> page uncharged.
>> Then why can't we just say,
>> if (mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(mem, page_to_nid(page), page_zonenum(page))->all_unreclaimable) {
>> mem_cgroup_clear_unreclaimable(mem, page);
>> }
>
> Are you suggesting to replace the batching w/ the code above?
err...never mind, I got it, it was designed to avoid to touch
mem_cgroup_per_zone and its flag. sorry for the noise :)
--
Thanks
Zhu Yanhai
>
> --Ying
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Zhu Yanhai
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
>>>> /*
>>>> * even after unlock, we have mem->res.usage here and this memcg
>>>> @@ -4569,6 +4663,8 @@ static int alloc_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int node)
>>>> mz->usage_in_excess = 0;
>>>> mz->on_tree = false;
>>>> mz->mem = mem;
>>>> + mz->pages_scanned = 0;
>>>> + mz->all_unreclaimable = false;
>>>> }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> index b8345d2..c081112 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> @@ -1414,6 +1414,9 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct zone *zone,
>>>> ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE,
>>>> zone, sc->mem_cgroup,
>>>> 0, file);
>>>> +
>>>> + mem_cgroup_mz_pages_scanned(sc->mem_cgroup, zone, nr_scanned);
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * mem_cgroup_isolate_pages() keeps track of
>>>> * scanned pages on its own.
>>>> @@ -1533,6 +1536,7 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_pages, struct zone *zone,
>>>> * mem_cgroup_isolate_pages() keeps track of
>>>> * scanned pages on its own.
>>>> */
>>>> + mem_cgroup_mz_pages_scanned(sc->mem_cgroup, zone, pgscanned);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> reclaim_stat->recent_scanned[file] += nr_taken;
>>>> @@ -2648,6 +2652,7 @@ static void balance_pgdat_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order,
>>>> unsigned long total_scanned = 0;
>>>> struct mem_cgroup *mem_cont = sc->mem_cgroup;
>>>> int priority = sc->priority;
>>>> + int nid = pgdat->node_id;
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Now scan the zone in the dma->highmem direction, and we scan
>>>> @@ -2664,10 +2669,20 @@ static void balance_pgdat_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order,
>>>> if (!populated_zone(zone))
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> + if (mem_cgroup_mz_unreclaimable(mem_cont, zone) &&
>>>> + priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> sc->nr_scanned = 0;
>>>> shrink_zone(priority, zone, sc);
>>>> total_scanned += sc->nr_scanned;
>>>>
>>>> + if (mem_cgroup_mz_unreclaimable(mem_cont, zone))
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable(mem_cont, nid, i))
>>>> + mem_cgroup_mz_set_unreclaimable(mem_cont, zone);
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * If we've done a decent amount of scanning and
>>>> * the reclaim ratio is low, start doing writepage
>>>> @@ -2752,6 +2767,10 @@ loop_again:
>>>>
>>>> if (!populated_zone(zone))
>>>> continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!mem_cgroup_mz_unreclaimable(mem_cont,
>>>> + zone))
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Ah, okay. this will work.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Kame
>>>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-22 1:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-14 22:54 [PATCH V4 00/10] memcg: per cgroup background reclaim Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 01/10] Add kswapd descriptor Ying Han
2011-04-15 0:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 3:35 ` Ying Han
2011-04-15 4:16 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 21:46 ` Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 02/10] Add per memcg reclaim watermarks Ying Han
2011-04-15 0:16 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 3:45 ` Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 03/10] New APIs to adjust per-memcg wmarks Ying Han
2011-04-15 0:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 4:00 ` Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 04/10] Infrastructure to support per-memcg reclaim Ying Han
2011-04-15 0:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 4:04 ` Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 05/10] Implement the select_victim_node within memcg Ying Han
2011-04-15 0:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 4:36 ` Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 06/10] Per-memcg background reclaim Ying Han
2011-04-15 1:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 6:08 ` Ying Han
2011-04-15 8:14 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 18:00 ` Ying Han
2011-04-15 6:26 ` Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 07/10] Add per-memcg zone "unreclaimable" Ying Han
2011-04-15 1:32 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-19 8:27 ` Zhu Yanhai
2012-03-20 5:45 ` Ying Han
2012-03-22 1:13 ` Zhu Yanhai [this message]
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 08/10] Enable per-memcg background reclaim Ying Han
2011-04-15 1:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 09/10] Add API to export per-memcg kswapd pid Ying Han
2011-04-15 1:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-04-15 4:47 ` Ying Han
2011-04-14 22:54 ` [PATCH V4 10/10] Add some per-memcg stats Ying Han
2011-04-15 9:40 ` [PATCH V4 00/10] memcg: per cgroup background reclaim Michal Hocko
2011-04-15 16:40 ` Ying Han
2011-04-18 9:13 ` Michal Hocko
2011-04-18 17:01 ` Ying Han
2011-04-18 18:42 ` Michal Hocko
2011-04-18 22:27 ` Ying Han
2011-04-19 2:48 ` Zhu Yanhai
2011-04-19 3:46 ` Ying Han
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='CAC8teKWxdRFBPw1DLABCrwBoEcuyk5NqD1+=TW6qchaK_8hcoQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=zhu.yanhai@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
--cc=yinghan@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).