lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [v6 PATCH 11/11] mm: vmscan: shrink deferred objects proportional to priority
From
Date
On 03.02.2021 20:20, Yang Shi wrote:
> The number of deferred objects might get windup to an absurd number, and it
> results in clamp of slab objects. It is undesirable for sustaining workingset.
>
> So shrink deferred objects proportional to priority and cap nr_deferred to twice
> of cache items.
>
> The idea is borrowed fron Dave Chinner's patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191031234618.15403-13-david@fromorbit.com/
>
> Tested with kernel build and vfs metadata heavy workload in our production
> environment, no regression is spotted so far.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>

For some time I was away from this do_shrink_slab() magic formulas and recent changes,
so I hope somebody else, who is being in touch with this, can review.

> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 40 +++++-----------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 574d920c4cab..d0a86170854b 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -649,7 +649,6 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> */
> nr = count_nr_deferred(shrinker, shrinkctl);
>
> - total_scan = nr;
> if (shrinker->seeks) {
> delta = freeable >> priority;
> delta *= 4;
> @@ -663,37 +662,9 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> delta = freeable / 2;
> }
>
> + total_scan = nr >> priority;
> total_scan += delta;
> - if (total_scan < 0) {
> - pr_err("shrink_slab: %pS negative objects to delete nr=%ld\n",
> - shrinker->scan_objects, total_scan);
> - total_scan = freeable;
> - next_deferred = nr;
> - } else
> - next_deferred = total_scan;
> -
> - /*
> - * We need to avoid excessive windup on filesystem shrinkers
> - * due to large numbers of GFP_NOFS allocations causing the
> - * shrinkers to return -1 all the time. This results in a large
> - * nr being built up so when a shrink that can do some work
> - * comes along it empties the entire cache due to nr >>>
> - * freeable. This is bad for sustaining a working set in
> - * memory.
> - *
> - * Hence only allow the shrinker to scan the entire cache when
> - * a large delta change is calculated directly.
> - */
> - if (delta < freeable / 4)
> - total_scan = min(total_scan, freeable / 2);
> -
> - /*
> - * Avoid risking looping forever due to too large nr value:
> - * never try to free more than twice the estimate number of
> - * freeable entries.
> - */
> - if (total_scan > freeable * 2)
> - total_scan = freeable * 2;
> + total_scan = min(total_scan, (2 * freeable));
>
> trace_mm_shrink_slab_start(shrinker, shrinkctl, nr,
> freeable, delta, total_scan, priority);
> @@ -732,10 +703,9 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> cond_resched();
> }
>
> - if (next_deferred >= scanned)
> - next_deferred -= scanned;
> - else
> - next_deferred = 0;
> + next_deferred = max_t(long, (nr - scanned), 0) + total_scan;
> + next_deferred = min(next_deferred, (2 * freeable));
> +
> /*
> * move the unused scan count back into the shrinker in a
> * manner that handles concurrent updates.

Thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-04 11:27    [W:0.283 / U:0.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site