lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/10] mm: vmscan: Obey proportional scanning requirements for kswapd
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 04:16:47PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2013/04/09 20:06), Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Simplistically, the anon and file LRU lists are scanned proportionally
> > depending on the value of vm.swappiness although there are other factors
> > taken into account by get_scan_count(). The patch "mm: vmscan: Limit
> > the number of pages kswapd reclaims" limits the number of pages kswapd
> > reclaims but it breaks this proportional scanning and may evenly shrink
> > anon/file LRUs regardless of vm.swappiness.
> >
> > This patch preserves the proportional scanning and reclaim. It does mean
> > that kswapd will reclaim more than requested but the number of pages will
> > be related to the high watermark.
> >
> > [mhocko@suse.cz: Correct proportional reclaim for memcg and simplify]
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 4835a7a..0742c45 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1825,13 +1825,21 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
> > enum lru_list lru;
> > unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > unsigned long nr_to_reclaim = sc->nr_to_reclaim;
> > + unsigned long nr_anon_scantarget, nr_file_scantarget;
> > struct blk_plug plug;
> > + bool scan_adjusted = false;
> >
> > get_scan_count(lruvec, sc, nr);
> >
> > + /* Record the original scan target for proportional adjustments later */
> > + nr_file_scantarget = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] + 1;
> > + nr_anon_scantarget = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON] + 1;
> > +
>
> I'm sorry I couldn't understand the calc...
>
> Assume here
> nr_file_scantarget = 100
> nr_anon_file_target = 100.
>

I think you might have meant nr_anon_scantarget here instead of
nr_anon_file_target.

>
> > blk_start_plug(&plug);
> > while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
> > nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]) {
> > + unsigned long nr_anon, nr_file, percentage;
> > +
> > for_each_evictable_lru(lru) {
> > if (nr[lru]) {
> > nr_to_scan = min(nr[lru], SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
> > @@ -1841,17 +1849,47 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
> > lruvec, sc);
> > }
> > }
> > +
> > + if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || scan_adjusted)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > /*
> > - * On large memory systems, scan >> priority can become
> > - * really large. This is fine for the starting priority;
> > - * we want to put equal scanning pressure on each zone.
> > - * However, if the VM has a harder time of freeing pages,
> > - * with multiple processes reclaiming pages, the total
> > - * freeing target can get unreasonably large.
> > + * For global direct reclaim, reclaim only the number of pages
> > + * requested. Less care is taken to scan proportionally as it
> > + * is more important to minimise direct reclaim stall latency
> > + * than it is to properly age the LRU lists.
> > */
> > - if (nr_reclaimed >= nr_to_reclaim &&
> > - sc->priority < DEF_PRIORITY)
> > + if (global_reclaim(sc) && !current_is_kswapd())
> > break;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For kswapd and memcg, reclaim at least the number of pages
> > + * requested. Ensure that the anon and file LRUs shrink
> > + * proportionally what was requested by get_scan_count(). We
> > + * stop reclaiming one LRU and reduce the amount scanning
> > + * proportional to the original scan target.
> > + */
> > + nr_file = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE];
> > + nr_anon = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON];
> > +
>
> Then, nr_file = 80, nr_anon=70.
>

As we scan evenly in SCAN_CLUSTER_MAX groups of pages, this wouldn't happen
but for the purposes of discussions, lets assume it did.

>
> > + if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> > + lru = LRU_BASE;
> > + percentage = nr_anon * 100 / nr_anon_scantarget;
> > + } else {
> > + lru = LRU_FILE;
> > + percentage = nr_file * 100 / nr_file_scantarget;
> > + }
>
> the percentage will be 70.
>

Yes.

> > +
> > + /* Stop scanning the smaller of the LRU */
> > + nr[lru] = 0;
> > + nr[lru + LRU_ACTIVE] = 0;
> > +
>
> this will stop anon scan.
>

Yes.

> > + /* Reduce scanning of the other LRU proportionally */
> > + lru = (lru == LRU_FILE) ? LRU_BASE : LRU_FILE;
> > + nr[lru] = nr[lru] * percentage / 100;;
> > + nr[lru + LRU_ACTIVE] = nr[lru + LRU_ACTIVE] * percentage / 100;
> > +
>
> finally, in the next iteration,
>
> nr[file] = 80 * 0.7 = 56.
>
> After loop, anon-scan is 30 pages , file-scan is 76(20+56) pages..
>

Well spotted, this would indeed reclaim too many pages from the other
LRU. I wanted to avoid recording the original scan targets as it's an
extra 40 bytes on the stack but it's unavoidable.

> I think the calc here should be
>
> nr[lru] = nr_lru_scantarget * percentage / 100 - nr[lru]
>
> Here, 80-70=10 more pages to scan..should be proportional.
>

nr[lru] at the end there is pages remaining to be scanned not pages
scanned already. Did you mean something like this?

nr[lru] = scantarget[lru] * percentage / 100 - (scantarget[lru] - nr[lru])

With care taken to ensure we do not underflow? Something like

unsigned long nr[NR_LRU_LISTS];
unsigned long targets[NR_LRU_LISTS];

...

memcpy(targets, nr, sizeof(nr));

...

nr[lru] = targets[lru] * percentage / 100;
nr[lru] -= min(nr[lru], (targets[lru] - nr[lru]));

lru += LRU_ACTIVE;
nr[lru] = targets[lru] * percentage / 100;
nr[lru] -= min(nr[lru], (targets[lru] - nr[lru]));

?

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-10 17:01    [W:0.142 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site