Hi Johannes,
The general idea sounds sane to me. A few comments inline.
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:50:28PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index a384339bf718..6a9ab5adf118 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
[...]
> @@ -1876,7 +1872,8 @@ enum scan_balance {
> * nr[2] = file inactive pages to scan; nr[3] = file active pages to scan
> */
> static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, int swappiness,
> - struct scan_control *sc, unsigned long *nr)
> + struct scan_control *sc, unsigned long *nr,
> + unsigned long *lru_pages)
> {
> struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = &lruvec->reclaim_stat;
> u64 fraction[2];
> @@ -2022,39 +2019,34 @@ out:
> some_scanned = false;
> /* Only use force_scan on second pass. */
> for (pass = 0; !some_scanned && pass < 2; pass++) {
> + *lru_pages = 0;
> for_each_evictable_lru(lru) {
> int file = is_file_lru(lru);
> unsigned long size;
> unsigned long scan;
>
> + /* Scan one type exclusively */
> + if ((scan_balance == SCAN_FILE) != file) {
> + nr[lru] = 0;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
Why do you move this piece of code? AFAIU, we only want to accumulate
the total number of evictable pages on the lruvec, so the patch for
shrink_lruvec should look much simpler. Is it a kind of cleanup? If so,
I guess it'd be better to submit it separately.
Anyways, this hunk doesn't look right to me. With it applied, if
scan_balance equals SCAN_EQUAL or SCAN_FRACT we won't scan file lists at
all.
> size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
> - scan = size >> sc->priority;
> + *lru_pages += size;
>
> + 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:
> + if (scan_balance == 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();
> + denominator);
> }
> +
> nr[lru] = scan;
> /*
> * Skip the second pass and don't force_scan,
> @@ -2077,10 +2069,17 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, int
> swappiness,
> enum lru_list lru;
> unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> unsigned long nr_to_reclaim = sc->nr_to_reclaim;
> + unsigned long nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> + unsigned long lru_pages;
> struct blk_plug plug;
> bool scan_adjusted;
> + struct shrink_control shrink = {
> + .gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask,
> + .nid = zone_to_nid(lruvec_zone(lruvec)),
> + };
> + struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
>
> - get_scan_count(lruvec, swappiness, sc, nr);
> + get_scan_count(lruvec, swappiness, sc, nr, &lru_pages);
>
> /* Record the original scan target for proportional adjustments later */
> memcpy(targets, nr, sizeof(nr));
> @@ -2173,6 +2172,23 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, int
> swappiness,
> sc->nr_reclaimed += nr_reclaimed;
>
> /*
> + * Shrink slab caches in the same proportion that the eligible
> + * LRU pages were scanned.
> + *
> + * XXX: Skip memcg limit reclaim, as the slab shrinkers are
> + * not cgroup-aware yet and we can't know if the objects in
> + * the global lists contribute to the memcg limit.
> + */
> + if (global_reclaim(sc) && lru_pages) {
> + nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned - nr_scanned;
> + shrink_slab(&shrink, nr_scanned, lru_pages);
I've a few concerns about slab-vs-pagecache reclaim proportion:
If a node has > 1 zones, then we will scan slabs more aggressively than
lru pages. Not sure, if it really matters, because on x86_64 most nodes
have 1 zone.
If there are > 1 nodes, NUMA-unaware shrinkers will get more pressure
than NUMA-aware ones. However, we have the same behavior in kswapd at
present. This might be an issue if there are many nodes.
If there are > 1 memory cgroups, slab shrinkers will get significantly
more pressure on global reclaim than they should. The introduction of
memcg-aware shrinkers will help, but only for memcg-aware shrinkers.
Other shrinkers (if there are any) will be treated unfairly. I think for
memcg-unaware shrinkers (i.e. for all shrinkers right now) we should
pass lru_pages=zone_reclaimable_pages.
BTW, may be we'd better pass the scan priority for shrink_slab to
calculate the pressure instead of messing with nr_scanned/lru_pages?
> + if (reclaim_state) {
> + sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> + reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> + }
OFF TOPIC: I wonder why we need the reclaim_state. The main shrink
candidates, dentries and inodes, are mostly freed by RCU, so they won't
count there.
> + }
> +
> + /*
> * Even if we did not try to evict anon pages at all, we want to
> * rebalance the anon lru active/inactive ratio.
> */
[...]
Thanks,
Vladimir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
