lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v3 0/10] memcg async reclaim
    From
    On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
    > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:34 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
    > <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 26 May 2011 21:33:32 -0700
    >> Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
    >>> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >>> > On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:49:26 -0700
    >>> > Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
    >>> >> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > It's now merge window...I just dump my patch queue to hear other's idea.
    >>> >> > I wonder I should wait until dirty_ratio for memcg is queued to mmotm...
    >>> >> > I'll be busy with LinuxCon Japan etc...in the next week.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > This patch is onto mmotm-May-11 + some patches queued in mmotm, as numa_stat.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > This is a patch for memcg to keep margin to the limit in background.
    >>> >> > By keeping some margin to the limit in background, application can
    >>> >> > avoid foreground memory reclaim at charge() and this will help latency.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > Main changes from v2 is.
    >>> >> >  - use SCHED_IDLE.
    >>> >> >  - removed most of heuristic codes. Now, code is very simple.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > By using SCHED_IDLE, async memory reclaim can only consume 0.3%? of cpu
    >>> >> > if the system is truely busy but can use much CPU if the cpu is idle.
    >>> >> > Because my purpose is for reducing latency without affecting other running
    >>> >> > applications, SCHED_IDLE fits this work.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > If application need to stop by some I/O or event, background memory reclaim
    >>> >> > will cull memory while the system is idle.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > Perforemce:
    >>> >> >  Running an httpd (apache) under 300M limit. And access 600MB working set
    >>> >> >  with normalized distribution access by apatch-bench.
    >>> >> >  apatch bench's concurrency was 4 and did 40960 accesses.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > Without async reclaim:
    >>> >> > Connection Times (ms)
    >>> >> >              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
    >>> >> > Connect:        0    0   0.0      0       2
    >>> >> > Processing:    30   37  28.3     32    1793
    >>> >> > Waiting:       28   35  25.5     31    1792
    >>> >> > Total:         30   37  28.4     32    1793
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
    >>> >> >  50%     32
    >>> >> >  66%     32
    >>> >> >  75%     33
    >>> >> >  80%     34
    >>> >> >  90%     39
    >>> >> >  95%     60
    >>> >> >  98%    100
    >>> >> >  99%    133
    >>> >> >  100%   1793 (longest request)
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > With async reclaim:
    >>> >> > Connection Times (ms)
    >>> >> >              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
    >>> >> > Connect:        0    0   0.0      0       2
    >>> >> > Processing:    30   35  12.3     32     678
    >>> >> > Waiting:       28   34  12.0     31     658
    >>> >> > Total:         30   35  12.3     32     678
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
    >>> >> >  50%     32
    >>> >> >  66%     32
    >>> >> >  75%     33
    >>> >> >  80%     34
    >>> >> >  90%     39
    >>> >> >  95%     49
    >>> >> >  98%     71
    >>> >> >  99%     86
    >>> >> >  100%    678 (longest request)
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > It seems latency is stabilized by hiding memory reclaim.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > The score for memory reclaim was following.
    >>> >> > See patch 10 for meaning of each member.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > == without async reclaim ==
    >>> >> > recent_scan_success_ratio 44
    >>> >> > limit_scan_pages 388463
    >>> >> > limit_freed_pages 162238
    >>> >> > limit_elapsed_ns 13852159231
    >>> >> > soft_scan_pages 0
    >>> >> > soft_freed_pages 0
    >>> >> > soft_elapsed_ns 0
    >>> >> > margin_scan_pages 0
    >>> >> > margin_freed_pages 0
    >>> >> > margin_elapsed_ns 0
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > == with async reclaim ==
    >>> >> > recent_scan_success_ratio 6
    >>> >> > limit_scan_pages 0
    >>> >> > limit_freed_pages 0
    >>> >> > limit_elapsed_ns 0
    >>> >> > soft_scan_pages 0
    >>> >> > soft_freed_pages 0
    >>> >> > soft_elapsed_ns 0
    >>> >> > margin_scan_pages 1295556
    >>> >> > margin_freed_pages 122450
    >>> >> > margin_elapsed_ns 644881521
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > For this case, SCHED_IDLE workqueue can reclaim enough memory to the httpd.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > I may need to dig why scan_success_ratio is far different in the both case.
    >>> >> > I guess the difference of epalsed_ns is because several threads enter
    >>> >> > memory reclaim when async reclaim doesn't run. But may not...
    >>> >> >
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Hmm.. I noticed a very strange behavior on a simple test w/ the patch set.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Test:
    >>> >> I created a 4g memcg and start doing cat. Then the memcg being OOM
    >>> >> killed as soon as it reaches its hard_limit. We shouldn't hit OOM even
    >>> >> w/o async-reclaim.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Again, I will read through the patch. But like to post the test result first.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> $ echo $$ >/dev/cgroup/memory/A/tasks
    >>> >> $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/A/memory.limit_in_bytes
    >>> >> 4294967296
    >>> >>
    >>> >> $ time cat /export/hdc3/dd_A/tf0 > /dev/zero
    >>> >> Killed
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> > I did the same kind of test without any problem...but ok, I'll do more test
    >>> > later.
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >> real  0m53.565s
    >>> >> user  0m0.061s
    >>> >> sys   0m4.814s
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Here is the OOM log:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489112] cat invoked oom-killer:
    >>> >> gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, oom_adj=0, oom_score_adj=0
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489121] Pid: 9425, comm: cat Tainted:
    >>> >> G        W   2.6.39-mcg-DEV #131
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489123] Call Trace:
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489134]  [<ffffffff810e3512>]
    >>> >> dump_header+0x82/0x1af
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489137]  [<ffffffff810e33ca>] ?
    >>> >> spin_lock+0xe/0x10
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489140]  [<ffffffff810e33f9>] ?
    >>> >> find_lock_task_mm+0x2d/0x67
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489143]  [<ffffffff810e38dd>]
    >>> >> oom_kill_process+0x50/0x27b
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489155]  [<ffffffff810e3dc6>]
    >>> >> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x9a/0xe4
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489160]  [<ffffffff811153aa>]
    >>> >> mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0x134/0x1fe
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489163]  [<ffffffff81114a72>] ?
    >>> >> __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded+0x83/0x83
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489176]  [<ffffffff811166e9>]
    >>> >> __mem_cgroup_try_charge.clone.3+0x368/0x43a
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489179]  [<ffffffff81117586>]
    >>> >> mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0x95/0x123
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489183]  [<ffffffff810e16d8>]
    >>> >> add_to_page_cache_locked+0x42/0x114
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489185]  [<ffffffff810e17db>]
    >>> >> add_to_page_cache_lru+0x31/0x5f
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489189]  [<ffffffff81145636>]
    >>> >> mpage_readpages+0xb6/0x132
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489194]  [<ffffffff8119992f>] ?
    >>> >> noalloc_get_block_write+0x24/0x24
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489197]  [<ffffffff8119992f>] ?
    >>> >> noalloc_get_block_write+0x24/0x24
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489201]  [<ffffffff81036742>] ?
    >>> >> __switch_to+0x160/0x212
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489205]  [<ffffffff811978b2>]
    >>> >> ext4_readpages+0x1d/0x1f
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489209]  [<ffffffff810e8d4b>]
    >>> >> __do_page_cache_readahead+0x144/0x1e3
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489212]  [<ffffffff810e8e0b>]
    >>> >> ra_submit+0x21/0x25
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489215]  [<ffffffff810e9075>]
    >>> >> ondemand_readahead+0x18c/0x19f
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489218]  [<ffffffff810e9105>]
    >>> >> page_cache_async_readahead+0x7d/0x86
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489221]  [<ffffffff810e2b7e>]
    >>> >> generic_file_aio_read+0x2d8/0x5fe
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489225]  [<ffffffff81119626>]
    >>> >> do_sync_read+0xcb/0x108
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489230]  [<ffffffff811f168a>] ?
    >>> >> fsnotify_perm+0x66/0x72
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489233]  [<ffffffff811f16f7>] ?
    >>> >> security_file_permission+0x2e/0x33
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489236]  [<ffffffff8111a0c8>]
    >>> >> vfs_read+0xab/0x107
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489239]  [<ffffffff8111a1e4>] sys_read+0x4a/0x6e
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489244]  [<ffffffff8140f469>]
    >>> >> sysenter_dispatch+0x7/0x27
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489248] Task in /A killed as a result
    >>> >> of limit of /A
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489251] memory: usage 4194304kB, limit
    >>> >> 4194304kB, failcnt 26
    >>> >> May 26 18:43:00  kernel: [  963.489253] memory+swap: usage 0kB, limit
    >>> >> 9007199254740991kB, failcnt 0
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> > Hmm, why memory+swap usage 0kb here...
    >>> >
    >>> > In this set, I used mem_cgroup_margin() rather than res_counter_margin().
    >>> > Hmm, do you disable swap accounting ? If so, I may miss some.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, I disabled the swap accounting in .config:
    >>> # CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP is not set
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Here is how i reproduce it:
    >>>
    >>> $ mkdir /dev/cgroup/memory/D
    >>> $ echo 4g >/dev/cgroup/memory/D/memory.limit_in_bytes
    >>>
    >>> $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/D/memory.limit_in_bytes
    >>> 4294967296
    >>>
    >>> $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/D/memory.
    >>> memory.async_control             memory.max_usage_in_bytes
    >>> memory.soft_limit_in_bytes       memory.use_hierarchy
    >>> memory.failcnt                   memory.move_charge_at_immigrate
    >>> memory.stat
    >>> memory.force_empty               memory.oom_control
    >>> memory.swappiness
    >>> memory.limit_in_bytes            memory.reclaim_stat
    >>> memory.usage_in_bytes
    >>>
    >>> $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/D/memory.async_control
    >>> 0
    >>> $ echo 1 >/dev/cgroup/memory/D/memory.async_control
    >>> $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/D/memory.async_control
    >>> 1
    >>>
    >>> $ echo $$ >/dev/cgroup/memory/D/tasks
    >>> $ cat /proc/4358/cgroup
    >>> 3:memory:/D
    >>>
    >>> $ time cat /export/hdc3/dd_A/tf0 > /dev/zero
    >>> Killed
    >>>
    >>
    >> If you applied my patches collectly, async_control can be seen if
    >> swap controller is configured because of BUG in patch.
    >
    > I noticed the BUG at the very beginning, so all my tests are having the fix.
    >
    >>
    >> I could cat 20G file under 4G limit without any problem with boot option
    >> swapaccount=0. no problem if async_control == 0 ?
    >
    > $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/D/memory.async_control
    > 1
    >
    > I have the .config
    > # CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP is not set
    >
    > Not sure if that makes difference. I will test next to turn that on.

    I know what's the problem and also verified. Our configuration might
    differs on the "#if MAX_NUMNODES > 1"

    Please apply the following patch:

    diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
    index 6a52699..0b88d71 100644
    --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
    +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
    @@ -1217,7 +1217,7 @@ unsigned long
    mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
    struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(memcg, nid, zid);

    nr = MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) +
    - MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, NR_ACTIVE_FILE);
    + MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
    if (nr_swap_pages > 0)
    nr += MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
    MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
    --Ying

    >
    > --Ying
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> -Kame
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-27 09:23    [W:0.059 / U:0.312 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site