On 05/09/2013 03:12 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:06:19AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> In very low free kernel memory situations, it may be the case that we
>> have less objects to free than our initial batch size. If this is the
>> case, it is better to shrink those, and open space for the new workload
>> then to keep them and fail the new allocations. For the purpose of
>> defining what "very low memory" means, we will purposefuly exclude
>> kswapd runs.
>>
>> More specifically, this happens because we encode this in a loop with
>> the condition: "while (total_scan >= batch_size)". So if we are in such
>> a case, we'll not even enter the loop.
>>
>> This patch modifies turns it into a do () while {} loop, that will
>> guarantee that we scan it at least once, while keeping the behaviour
>> exactly the same for the cases in which total_scan > batch_size.
>>
>> [ v5: differentiate no-scan case, don't do this for kswapd ]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
>> CC: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index fa6a853..49691da 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -281,12 +281,30 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrink,
>> nr_pages_scanned, lru_pages,
>> max_pass, delta, total_scan);
>>
>> - while (total_scan >= batch_size) {
>> + do {
>> int nr_before;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * When we are kswapd, there is no need for us to go
>> + * desperate and try to reclaim any number of objects
>> + * regardless of batch size. Direct reclaim, OTOH, may
>> + * benefit from freeing objects in any quantities. If
>> + * the workload is actually stressing those objects,
>> + * this may be the difference between succeeding or
>> + * failing an allocation.
>> + */
>> + if ((total_scan < batch_size) && current_is_kswapd())
>> + break;
>> + /*
>> + * Differentiate between "few objects" and "no objects"
>> + * as returned by the count step.
>> + */
>> + if (!total_scan)
>> + break;
>> +
>
> To reduce the risk of slab reclaiming the world in the reasonable cases
> I outlined after the leader mail, I would go further than this and either
> limit it to memcg after shrinkers are memcg aware or only do the full scan
> if direct reclaim and priority == 0.
>
> What do you think?
>
I of course understand your worries, but I myself believe makes things
less memcg specific is a long term win. There is a reason for memcg
needing this, and it might be helpful in other situations as well (maybe
very low memory in small systems, or a small zone, etc). All that, if
possible of course. As a last resort, I am obviously fine with
making it memcg specific if needed.
>From the options you outlined above, I personally would prefer to add
the priority check test (since the direct reclaim part is implicit by
the current_is_kswapd test)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
