lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: Only force scan in reclaim when none of the LRUs are big enough.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 08:36:02PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> From: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>
>
> Prior to this change, we would decide whether to force scan a LRU
> during reclaim if that LRU itself was too small for the current
> priority. However, this can lead to the file LRU getting force
> scanned even if there are a lot of anonymous pages we can reclaim,
> leading to hot file pages getting needlessly reclaimed.
>
> To address this, we instead only force scan when none of the
> reclaimable LRUs are big enough.
>
> Gives huge improvements with zswap. For example, when doing -j20
> kernel build in a 500MB container with zswap enabled, runtime (in
> seconds) is greatly reduced:
>
> x without this change
> + with this change
> N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
> x 5 700.997 790.076 763.928 754.05 39.59493
> + 5 141.634 197.899 155.706 161.9 21.270224
> Difference at 95.0% confidence
> -592.15 +/- 46.3521
> -78.5293% +/- 6.14709%
> (Student's t, pooled s = 31.7819)
>
> Should also give some improvements in regular (non-zswap) swap cases.
>
> Yes, hughd found significant speedup using regular swap, with several
> memcgs under pressure; and it should also be effective in the non-memcg
> case, whenever one or another zone LRU is forced too small.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> ---
>

Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>

> I apologize to everyone for holding on to this so long: I think it's
> a very helpful patch (which we've been using in Google for months now).
> Been sitting on my TODO list, now prompted to send by related patches
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/13/217
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/277
>
> Certainly worth considering all three together, but my understanding
> is that they're actually three independent attacks on different ways
> in which we currently squeeze an LRU too small; and this patch from
> Suleiman seems to be the most valuable of the three, at least for
> the workloads I've tried it on. But I'm not much of a page reclaim
> performance tester: please try it out to see if it's good for you.
> Thanks!
>
> mm/vmscan.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> We did experiment with different ways of writing the patch, I'm afraid
> the way it came out best indents deeper, making it look more than it is.
>
> --- 3.14-rc6/mm/vmscan.c 2014-02-02 18:49:07.949302116 -0800
> +++ linux/mm/vmscan.c 2014-03-15 19:31:44.948977032 -0700
> @@ -1852,6 +1852,8 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec
> bool force_scan = false;
> unsigned long ap, fp;
> enum lru_list lru;
> + bool some_scanned;
> + int pass;
>
> /*
> * If the zone or memcg is small, nr[l] can be 0. This
> @@ -1971,39 +1973,49 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec
> fraction[1] = fp;
> denominator = ap + fp + 1;
> out:
> - for_each_evictable_lru(lru) {
> - int file = is_file_lru(lru);
> - unsigned long size;
> - unsigned long scan;
> -
> - size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
> - scan = size >> sc->priority;
> -
> - if (!scan && force_scan)
> - scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
> -
> - switch (scan_balance) {
> - case SCAN_EQUAL:
> - /* Scan lists relative to size */
> - break;
> - case SCAN_FRACT:
> + some_scanned = false;
> + /* Only use force_scan on second pass. */
> + for (pass = 0; !some_scanned && pass < 2; pass++) {
> + for_each_evictable_lru(lru) {
> + int file = is_file_lru(lru);
> + unsigned long size;
> + unsigned long scan;
> +
> + size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
> + scan = size >> sc->priority;
> +
> + if (!scan && pass && force_scan)
> + scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
> +
> + switch (scan_balance) {
> + case SCAN_EQUAL:
> + /* Scan lists relative to size */
> + break;
> + case SCAN_FRACT:
> + /*
> + * Scan types proportional to swappiness and
> + * their relative recent reclaim efficiency.
> + */
> + scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file],
> + denominator);
> + break;
> + case SCAN_FILE:
> + case SCAN_ANON:
> + /* Scan one type exclusively */
> + if ((scan_balance == SCAN_FILE) != file)
> + scan = 0;
> + break;
> + default:
> + /* Look ma, no brain */
> + BUG();
> + }
> + nr[lru] = scan;
> /*
> - * Scan types proportional to swappiness and
> - * their relative recent reclaim efficiency.
> + * Skip the second pass and don't force_scan,
> + * if we found something to scan.
> */
> - scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file], denominator);
> - break;
> - case SCAN_FILE:
> - case SCAN_ANON:
> - /* Scan one type exclusively */
> - if ((scan_balance == SCAN_FILE) != file)
> - scan = 0;
> - break;
> - default:
> - /* Look ma, no brain */
> - BUG();
> + some_scanned |= !!scan;
> }
> - nr[lru] = scan;
> }
> }
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-28 20:01    [W:0.056 / U:24.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site