From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE9AC282C0 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340FB217F5 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:11:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1548245463; bh=63FdjGxriYSBkfHDCBwcWoGSDK85biVMPwupFi8Mi+s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=H/tYIwRvRHhUP25Jm99YzBw5l3r5IJ8u+VtmnSblsp0bqp3jIkt0HGnEKpvztgU0D yN8ei/9eWeYTNlz8V19MymRkZ7x2z2IT2kAYcaIi5lel+g9cNDv2gS2v8xdKDT4QXD FXth2kuQlU4jB4W0bCH1HvDR8ldHKxQ37eHExSqs= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727416AbfAWMLB (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:11:01 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36548 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725991AbfAWMLB (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:11:01 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41466B0E7; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:10:58 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Kirill Tkhai Cc: Yang Shi , hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not iterate all mem cgroups for global direct reclaim Message-ID: <20190123121058.GW4087@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1548187782-108454-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190123110254.GU4087@dhcp22.suse.cz> <9bd4044b-63d0-b24f-a108-3061c00ed131@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9bd4044b-63d0-b24f-a108-3061c00ed131@virtuozzo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 23-01-19 14:05:28, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > On 23.01.2019 14:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 23-01-19 13:28:03, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > >> On 22.01.2019 23:09, Yang Shi wrote: > >>> In current implementation, both kswapd and direct reclaim has to iterate > >>> all mem cgroups. It is not a problem before offline mem cgroups could > >>> be iterated. But, currently with iterating offline mem cgroups, it > >>> could be very time consuming. In our workloads, we saw over 400K mem > >>> cgroups accumulated in some cases, only a few hundred are online memcgs. > >>> Although kswapd could help out to reduce the number of memcgs, direct > >>> reclaim still get hit with iterating a number of offline memcgs in some > >>> cases. We experienced the responsiveness problems due to this > >>> occassionally. > >>> > >>> Here just break the iteration once it reclaims enough pages as what > >>> memcg direct reclaim does. This may hurt the fairness among memcgs > >>> since direct reclaim may awlays do reclaim from same memcgs. But, it > >>> sounds ok since direct reclaim just tries to reclaim SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX > >>> pages and memcgs can be protected by min/low. > >> > >> In case of we stop after SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages are reclaimed; it's possible > >> the following situation. Memcgs, which are closest to root_mem_cgroup, will > >> become empty, and you will have to iterate over empty memcg hierarchy long time, > >> just to find a not empty memcg. > >> > >> I'd suggest, we should not lose fairness. We may introduce > >> mem_cgroup::last_reclaim_child parameter to save a child > >> (or its id), where the last reclaim was interrupted. Then > >> next reclaim should start from this child: > > > > Why is not our reclaim_cookie based caching sufficient? > > Hm, maybe I missed them. Do cookies already implement this functionality? Have a look at mem_cgroup_iter -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs