public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit()
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:13:11 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0705720-0909-e224-4bdd-481660e516f2@virtuozzo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180222140932.GL30681@dhcp22.suse.cz>



On 02/22/2018 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-02-18 16:50:33, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> On 02/21/2018 11:17 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:11:18 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And to be honest, I do not really see why keeping retrying from
>>>> mem_cgroup_resize_limit should be so much faster than keep retrying from
>>>> the direct reclaim path. We are doing SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX batches anyway.
>>>> mem_cgroup_resize_limit loop adds _some_ overhead but I am not really
>>>> sure why it should be that large.
>>>
>>> Maybe restarting the scan lots of times results in rescanning lots of
>>> ineligible pages at the start of the list before doing useful work?
>>>
>>> Andrey, are you able to determine where all that CPU time is being spent?
>>>
>>
>> I should have been more specific about the test I did. The full script looks like this:
>>
>> mkdir -p /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test
>> echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/tasks
>> cat 4G_file > /dev/null
>> while true; do cat 4G_file > /dev/null; done &
>> loop_pid=$!
>> perf stat echo 50M > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/memory.limit_in_bytes
>> echo -1 > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/memory.limit_in_bytes
>> kill $loop_pid
>>
>>
>> I think the additional loops add some overhead and it's not that big by itself, but
>> this small overhead allows task to refill slightly more pages, increasing
>> the total amount of pages that mem_cgroup_resize_limit() need to reclaim.
>>
>> By using the following commands to show the the amount of reclaimed pages:
>> perf record -e vmscan:mm_vmscan_memcg_reclaim_end echo 50M > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/memory.limit_in_bytes
>> perf script|cut -d '=' -f 2| paste -sd+ |bc
>>
>> I've got 1259841 pages (4.9G) with the patch vs 1394312 pages (5.4G) without it.
> 
> So how does the picture changes if you have multiple producers?
> 

Drastically, in favor of the patch. But numbers *very* fickle from run to run.

Inside 5G vm with  4 cpus (qemu -m 5G -smp 4) and 4 processes in cgroup reading 1G files:
"while true; do cat /1g_f$i > /dev/null; done &"

with the patch:
best: 1.04  secs, 9.7G reclaimed
worst: 2.2 secs, 16G reclaimed.

without:
best: 5.4 sec, 35G reclaimed
worst: 22.2 sec, 136G reclaimed

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-22 15:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-20 10:24 [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 10:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 10:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko
2017-12-20 11:32   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 11:34     ` Michal Hocko
2017-12-20 18:15       ` Shakeel Butt
2017-12-21 10:00         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:21 ` [PATCH v2 " Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:21   ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin
2017-12-20 13:53   ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko
2018-01-09 16:58     ` [PATCH v3 " Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 16:58       ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 17:10         ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-09 17:26           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 23:26             ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-10 12:43               ` [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-10 22:31                 ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-11 11:59                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-12  0:21                     ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12  9:08                       ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 10:42                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 12:21                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 12:46                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 15:23                       ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-11 16:29                         ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-11 21:59                           ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-12 12:24                             ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-12 22:57                               ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-15 12:29                                 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 17:04                                   ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-15 12:30                               ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 12:46                                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-15 12:53                                   ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-15 12:58                                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-09 17:08       ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-09 17:22       ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 13:25 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/memcontrol.c: " Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-19 13:25   ` [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit() Andrey Ryabinin
2018-01-19 13:35     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 14:49       ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 15:11         ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 15:24           ` Shakeel Butt
2018-01-19 15:31             ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-21 20:17           ` Andrew Morton
2018-02-22 13:50             ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 14:09               ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 15:13                 ` Andrey Ryabinin [this message]
2018-02-22 15:33                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 15:38                     ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 15:44                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-22 16:01                         ` Andrey Ryabinin
2018-02-22 16:30                           ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-19 13:32   ` [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/memcontrol.c: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko
2018-01-25 19:44   ` Andrey Ryabinin

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=e0705720-0909-e224-4bdd-481660e516f2@virtuozzo.com \
    --to=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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