From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qv1-f46.google.com (mail-qv1-f46.google.com [209.85.219.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDD3914F61 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:56:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706651790; cv=none; b=cIgEEvoTLalIEPMUnqJEX3/1Ii3mBbg5+SuigRZ3l1LlUJYWsJ24P7xV8wQdtc7dRJX4vM1YL/CEeDjTsQXcA1Owce27hceJhLJp3LG63gBR8E6yWB4isYf7GM8Fxkn7c002imz8dbAquxAxaqVFe1v1MMiPwRtbts95Q0jPtj0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706651790; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QFF3g8SJ4OiMza5Xx+W6HjoPtXkMrCk0w56SdKoVm3E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CLVNaNEKsJkE9c45CBkhSYIR0dGnY8Nn7eW308vGGFA0YquqjW6dQi0bnQ4VNWn9tl2EaeRgU7Kz5l4GbXSe7ZIhb+hHpGbaYnf0FDqwOpSMZM38aCXcxiIcD+SYj20JIsURULGAXLDW45IZaNUgqGb8quy6kIi6kShH62gVOig= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cmpxchg.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cmpxchg-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=NPOWjrkO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cmpxchg-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="NPOWjrkO" Received: by mail-qv1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-68c53ed6c56so13100016d6.3 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:56:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1706651786; x=1707256586; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zUwitgcZ8PysFOK/IjV63sunJlwofoIw/gZSZx3mTw0=; b=NPOWjrkOnfgF8bI7jvihkIPTJu13w3AKmOzC6OtMmjjq0My81atY0FPGwutJpJ7cFZ 5q+UP8E4EP68OysIHXPvvARU5NlRGWUEzCxAcwFdo2VflztzgRE3o7QDkZgPjTYIy5Pu Ro3whZW3ldQXFFOfmMwil4DNc+AF9RMkm5rQGgZb8uGYgEdo2NfKzXlzwmPvqFhc++hx 1JcUgQL8ers4696kfJSPMI0D/J9IcYWYstHLNHX07A1gKIx0YHvk8sNYHijSBregHI4a 86lt9aceAOzKlS8qza1i3F78SroqUWfOLs6zNxJ3PxSVvWfEmAyY1DAh/8NA7b70qLMe MREw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706651786; x=1707256586; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zUwitgcZ8PysFOK/IjV63sunJlwofoIw/gZSZx3mTw0=; b=eMxUrtPxoewyozIx4/4bFMAsl5GlcaVEMNKBPH/XTLW57oUHxk2lPDeNcLZSwM/qrE rS6XbXOYAz39RqX+sICKE25Z+UOXcFFW85gt+oxmkE9HkgAH2+DGWPu5GE+30KHMU8uy CIZ1W+dHyJZvl7SG8oGUO/1ejzKaaw9ojLdZAPZNBsD7kCwmrAWoif2q7S1r96H3y1sP OAAbFGWvmQN449paDMNsL5eFBCiUK5wf7D7LQdbijTlpS7i0sLQHfdUwe4+Wv7PsGZ3+ Xh5pcXnEbTOJMKi9iMpBkMBSsUqirwm0O3EWwISO2o3KrS9wIKt9pRdqrukWpFZuu2un ufCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzQgh5SjZwb/hQbUnGYXFQ62b0g74cSe8CqmlU397KQc6XkJURK dboBs4+Fi9hAYuvglVer53q62F12ij42UtSB56W568j2AO8VsVjeEs4w+HxP1vfmSjypxr+uarn f X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEaHZUxi5O8j8Bxm1H1MuCEcZ4girsG/PslfOcIwAPmfhwFr0mToEqN3itXQuBrFZ8Ns2nPOw== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5ecf:0:b0:686:309d:8915 with SMTP id jm15-20020ad45ecf000000b00686309d8915mr9823848qvb.6.1706651786531; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:56:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (2603-7000-0c01-2716-da5e-d3ff-fee7-26e7.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:7000:c01:2716:da5e:d3ff:fee7:26e7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pj3-20020a0562144b0300b0068c68437655sm362333qvb.115.2024.01.30.13.56.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:56:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:56:25 -0500 From: Johannes Weiner To: "T.J. Mercier" Cc: Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , android-mm@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, yangyifei03@kuaishou.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm:vmscan: fix inaccurate reclaim during proactive reclaim" Message-ID: <20240130215625.GA970164@cmpxchg.org> References: <20240121214413.833776-1-tjmercier@google.com> <20240123164819.GB1745986@cmpxchg.org> <20240126163401.GJ1567330@cmpxchg.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:58:12PM -0800, T.J. Mercier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 8:41 AM T.J. Mercier wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 8:34 AM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:46:23AM -0800, T.J. Mercier wrote: > > > > In the meantime, instead of a revert how about changing the batch size > > > > geometrically instead of the SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX constant: > > > > > > > > reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, > > > > - min(nr_to_reclaim - > > > > nr_reclaimed, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX), > > > > + (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed)/2, > > > > GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options); > > > > > > > > I think that should address the overreclaim concern (it was mentioned > > > > that the upper bound of overreclaim was 2 * request), and this should > > > > also increase the reclaim rate for root reclaim with MGLRU closer to > > > > what it was before. > > > > > > Hahaha. Would /4 work for you? > > > > > > I genuinely think the idea is worth a shot. /4 would give us a bit > > > more margin for error, since the bailout/fairness cutoffs have changed > > > back and forth over time. And it should still give you a reasonable > > > convergence on MGLRU. > > > > > > try_to_free_reclaim_pages() already does max(nr_to_reclaim, > > > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) which will avoid the painful final approach loops > > > the integer division would produce on its own. > > > > > > Please add a comment mentioning the compromise between the two reclaim > > > implementations though. > > > > I'll try it out and get back to you. :) > > Right, so (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed)/4 looks pretty good to me: > > root - full reclaim pages/sec time (sec) > pre-0388536ac291 : 68047 10.46 > post-0388536ac291 : 13742 inf > (reclaim-reclaimed)/4 : 67352 10.51 > > /uid_0 - 1G reclaim pages/sec time (sec) overreclaim (MiB) > pre-0388536ac291 : 258822 1.12 107.8 > post-0388536ac291 : 105174 2.49 3.5 > (reclaim-reclaimed)/4 : 233396 1.12 -7.4 > > /uid_0 - full reclaim pages/sec time (sec) > pre-0388536ac291 : 72334 7.09 > post-0388536ac291 : 38105 14.45 > (reclaim-reclaimed)/4 : 72914 6.96 > > So I'll put up a new patch. That looks great, thanks for giving it a shot. Looking forward to your patch.