Re: [patch 0/8] mm: memcg naturalization -rc2

Ying Han
2011-06-02T15:51:45Z

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:05:18PM -0700, Ying Han wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Hiroyuki Kamezawa
>> <kamezawa.hiroyuki@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2011/6/1 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> this is the second version of the memcg naturalization series.  The
>> >> notable changes since the first submission are:
>> >>
>> >>    o the hierarchy walk is now intermittent and will abort and
>> >>      remember the last scanned child after sc->nr_to_reclaim pages
>> >>      have been reclaimed during the walk in one zone (Rik)
>> >>
>> >>    o the global lru lists are never scanned when memcg is enabled
>> >>      after #2 'memcg-aware global reclaim', which makes this patch
>> >>      self-sufficient and complete without requiring the per-memcg lru
>> >>      lists to be exclusive (Michal)
>> >>
>> >>    o renamed sc->memcg and sc->current_memcg to sc->target_mem_cgroup
>> >>      and sc->mem_cgroup and fixed their documentation, I hope this is
>> >>      better understandable now (Rik)
>> >>
>> >>    o the reclaim statistic counters have been renamed.  there is no
>> >>      more distinction between 'pgfree' and 'pgsteal', it is now
>> >>      'pgreclaim' in both cases; 'kswapd' has been replaced by
>> >>      'background'
>> >>
>> >>    o fixed a nasty crash in the hierarchical soft limit check that
>> >>      happened during global reclaim in memcgs that are hierarchical
>> >>      but have no hierarchical parents themselves
>> >>
>> >>    o properly implemented the memcg-aware unevictable page rescue
>> >>      scanner, there were several blatant bugs in there
>> >>
>> >>    o documentation on new public interfaces
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your input on the first version.
>> >>
>> >> I ran microbenchmarks (sparse file catting, essentially) to stress
>> >> reclaim and LRU operations.  There is no measurable overhead for
>> >> !CONFIG_MEMCG, memcg disabled during boot, memcg enabled but no
>> >> configured groups, and hard limit reclaim.
>> >>
>> >> I also ran single-threaded kernbenchs in four unlimited memcgs in
>> >> parallel, contained in a hard-limited hierarchical parent that put
>> >> constant pressure on the workload.  There is no measurable difference
>> >> in runtime, the pgpgin/pgpgout counters, and fairness among memcgs in
>> >> this test compared to an unpatched kernel.  Needs more evaluation,
>> >> especially with a higher number of memcgs.
>> >>
>> >> The soft limit changes are also proven to work in so far that it is
>> >> possible to prioritize between children in a hierarchy under pressure
>> >> and that runtime differences corresponded directly to the soft limit
>> >> settings in the previously described kernbench setup with staggered
>> >> soft limits on the groups, but this needs quantification.
>> >>
>> >> Based on v2.6.39.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hmm, I welcome and will review this patches but.....some points I want to say.
>> >
>> > 1. No more conflict with Ying's work ?
>> >    Could you explain what she has and what you don't in this v2 ?
>> >    If Ying's one has something good to be merged to your set, please
>> > include it.
>>
>> My patch I sent out last time was doing rework of soft_limit reclaim.
>> It convert the RB-tree based to
>> a linked list round-robin fashion of all memcgs across their soft
>> limit per-zone.
>>
>> I will apply this patch and try to test it. After that i will get
>> better idea whether or not it is being covered here.
>
> Thanks!!
>
>> > 4. This work can be splitted into some small works.
>> >     a) fix for current code and clean ups
>>
>> >     a') statistics
>>
>> >     b) soft limit rework
>>
>> >     c) change global reclaim
>>
>> My last patchset starts with a patch reverting the RB-tree
>> implementation of the soft_limit
>> reclaim, and then the new round-robin implementation comes on the
>> following patches.
>>
>> I like the ordering here, and that is consistent w/ the plan we
>> discussed earlier in LSF. Changing
>> the global reclaim would be the last step when the changes before that
>> have been well understood
>> and tested.
>>
>> Sorry If that is how it is done here. I will read through the patchset.
>
> It's not.  The way I implemented soft limits depends on global reclaim
> performing hierarchical reclaim.  I don't see how I can reverse the
> order with this dependency.

That is something I don't quite get yet, and maybe need a closer look
into the patchset. The current design of
soft_limit doesn't do reclaim hierarchically but instead links the
memcgs together on per-zone basis.

However on this patchset, we changed that design and doing
hierarchy_walk of the memcg tree. Can we clarify more on why we made
the design change? I can see the current design provides a efficient
way to pick the one memcg over-their-soft-limit under shrink_zone().

--Ying

>