On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:03:02PM +1000, npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Allow the shrinker to do per-zone shrinking. This means it is called for
> each zone scanned. The shrinker is now completely responsible for calculating
> and batching (given helpers), which provides better flexibility.
>
> Finding the ratio of objects to scan requires scaling the ratio of pagecache
> objects scanned. By passing down both the per-zone and the global reclaimable
> pages, per-zone caches and global caches can be calculated correctly.
>
> Finally, add some fixed-point scaling to the ratio, which helps calculations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/dcache.c | 2
> fs/drop_caches.c | 2
> fs/inode.c | 2
> fs/mbcache.c | 4 -
> fs/nfs/dir.c | 2
> fs/nfs/internal.h | 2
> fs/quota/dquot.c | 2
> include/linux/mm.h | 6 +-
> mm/vmscan.c | 131 ++++++++++++++---------------------------------------
> 9 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
The diffstat doesn't match the patch ;)
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -999,16 +999,19 @@ static inline void sync_mm_rss(struct ta
> * querying the cache size, so a fastpath for that case is appropriate.
> */
> struct shrinker {
> - int (*shrink)(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask);
> - int seeks; /* seeks to recreate an obj */
> -
> + int (*shrink)(struct zone *zone, unsigned long scanned, unsigned long total,
> + unsigned long global, gfp_t gfp_mask);
Can we add the shrinker structure to taht callback, too, so that we
can get away from needing global context for the shrinker?
> +unsigned long shrinker_do_scan(unsigned long *dst, unsigned long batch)
> +{
> + unsigned long nr = ACCESS_ONCE(*dst);
What's the point of ACCESS_ONCE() here?
/me gets most of the way into the patch
Oh, it's because you are using static variables for nr_to_scan and
hence when concurrent shrinkers are running they are all
incrementing and decrementing the same variable. That doesn't sound
like a good idea to me - concurrent shrinkers are much more likely
with per-zone shrinker callouts. It seems to me that a reclaim
thread could be kept in a shrinker long after it has run it's
scan count if new shrinker calls from a different reclaim context
occur before the first has finished....
As a further question - why do some shrinkerѕ get converted to a
single global nr_to_scan, and others get converted to a private
nr_to_scan? Shouldn't they all use the same method? The static
variable method looks to me to be full of races - concurrent callers
to shrinker_add_scan() does not look at all thread safe to me.
> + if (nr < batch)
> + return 0;
Why wouldn't we return nr here to drain the remaining objects?
Doesn't this mean we can't shrink caches that have a scan count of
less than SHRINK_BATCH?
> + *dst = nr - batch;
Similarly, that is not a threadsafe update.
> + return batch;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrinker_do_scan);
> +
> /*
> * Call the shrink functions to age shrinkable caches
> *
> @@ -198,8 +228,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_shrinker);
> *
> * Returns the number of slab objects which we shrunk.
> */
> -unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long scanned, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> - unsigned long lru_pages)
> +static unsigned long shrink_slab(struct zone *zone, unsigned long scanned, unsigned long total,
> + unsigned long global, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> struct shrinker *shrinker;
> unsigned long ret = 0;
> @@ -211,55 +241,25 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long
> return 1; /* Assume we'll be able to shrink next time */
>
> list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
> - unsigned long long delta;
> - unsigned long total_scan;
> - unsigned long max_pass = (*shrinker->shrink)(0, gfp_mask);
> -
> - delta = (4 * scanned) / shrinker->seeks;
> - delta *= max_pass;
> - do_div(delta, lru_pages + 1);
> - shrinker->nr += delta;
> - if (shrinker->nr < 0) {
> - printk(KERN_ERR "shrink_slab: %pF negative objects to "
> - "delete nr=%ld\n",
> - shrinker->shrink, shrinker->nr);
> - shrinker->nr = max_pass;
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * Avoid risking looping forever due to too large nr value:
> - * never try to free more than twice the estimate number of
> - * freeable entries.
> - */
> - if (shrinker->nr > max_pass * 2)
> - shrinker->nr = max_pass * 2;
> -
> - total_scan = shrinker->nr;
> - shrinker->nr = 0;
> -
> - while (total_scan >= SHRINK_BATCH) {
> - long this_scan = SHRINK_BATCH;
> - int shrink_ret;
> - int nr_before;
> -
> - nr_before = (*shrinker->shrink)(0, gfp_mask);
> - shrink_ret = (*shrinker->shrink)(this_scan, gfp_mask);
> - if (shrink_ret == -1)
> - break;
> - if (shrink_ret < nr_before)
> - ret += nr_before - shrink_ret;
> - count_vm_events(SLABS_SCANNED, this_scan);
> - total_scan -= this_scan;
> -
> - cond_resched();
Removing this means we need cond_resched() in all shrinker loops now
to maintain the same latencies as we currently have. I note that
you've done this for most of the shrinkers, but the documentation
needs to be updated to mention this...
> - }
> -
> - shrinker->nr += total_scan;
And dropping this means we do not carry over the remainder of the
previous scan into the next scan. This means we could be scanning a
lot less with this new code.
> + (*shrinker->shrink)(zone, scanned, total, global, gfp_mask);
> }
> up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
> return ret;
> }
>
> +void shrink_all_slab(void)
> +{
> + struct zone *zone;
> + unsigned long nr;
> +
> +again:
> + nr = 0;
> + for_each_zone(zone)
> + nr += shrink_slab(zone, 1, 1, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (nr >= 10)
> + goto again;
do {
nr = 0;
for_each_zone(zone)
nr += shrink_slab(zone, 1, 1, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
} while (nr >= 10);
> @@ -1705,6 +1708,23 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, st
> if (inactive_anon_is_low(zone, sc) && nr_swap_pages > 0)
> shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, zone, sc, priority, 0);
>
> + /*
> + * Don't shrink slabs when reclaiming memory from
> + * over limit cgroups
> + */
> + if (scanning_global_lru(sc)) {
> + struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
> +
> + shrink_slab(zone, sc->nr_scanned - nr_scanned,
> + lru_pages, global_lru_pages, sc->gfp_mask);
> + if (reclaim_state) {
> + nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> + reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> + }
> + }
So effectively we are going to be calling shrink_slab() once per
zone instead of once per priority loop, right? That means we are
going to be doing a lot more concurrent shrink_slab() calls that the
current code. Combine that with the removal of residual aggregation,
I think this will alter the reclaim balance somewhat. Have you tried
to quantify this?
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/dcache.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/dcache.c
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -748,20 +748,26 @@ again2:
> *
> * This function may fail to free any resources if all the dentries are in use.
> */
> -static void prune_dcache(int count)
> +static void prune_dcache(struct zone *zone, unsigned long scanned,
> + unsigned long total, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +
> {
> + unsigned long nr_to_scan;
> struct super_block *sb, *n;
> int w_count;
> - int unused = dentry_stat.nr_unused;
> int prune_ratio;
> - int pruned;
> + int count, pruned;
>
> - if (unused == 0 || count == 0)
> + shrinker_add_scan(&nr_to_scan, scanned, total, dentry_stat.nr_unused,
> + DEFAULT_SEEKS * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure / 100);
> +done:
> + count = shrinker_do_scan(&nr_to_scan, SHRINK_BATCH);
> + if (dentry_stat.nr_unused == 0 || count == 0)
> return;
> - if (count >= unused)
> + if (count >= dentry_stat.nr_unused)
> prune_ratio = 1;
> else
> - prune_ratio = unused / count;
> + prune_ratio = dentry_stat.nr_unused / count;
> spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(sb, n, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> if (list_empty(&sb->s_instances))
> @@ -810,6 +816,10 @@ static void prune_dcache(int count)
> break;
> }
> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> + if (count <= 0) {
> + cond_resched();
> + goto done;
> + }
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -1176,19 +1186,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrink_dcache_parent);
> *
> * In this case we return -1 to tell the caller that we baled.
> */
> -static int shrink_dcache_memory(int nr, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +static int shrink_dcache_memory(struct zone *zone, unsigned long scanned,
> + unsigned long total, unsigned long global, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> - if (nr) {
> - if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> - return -1;
> - prune_dcache(nr);
> - }
> - return (dentry_stat.nr_unused / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
> + prune_dcache(zone, scanned, global, gfp_mask);
> + return 0;
> }
I would have thought that putting the shrinker_add_scan/
shrinker_do_scan loop in shrink_dcache_memory() and leaving
prune_dcache untouched would have been a better separation.
I note that this is what you did with prune_icache(), so consistency
between the two would be good ;)
Also, this patch drops the __GFP_FS check from the dcache shrinker -
not intentional, right?
> @@ -211,28 +215,38 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t
> atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> }
> + shrinker_add_scan(&nr_to_scan, scanned, global, count,
> + DEFAULT_SEEKS * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure / 100);
> mb_debug("trying to free %d entries", nr_to_scan);
> - if (nr_to_scan == 0) {
> +
> +again:
> + nr = shrinker_do_scan(&nr_to_scan, SHRINK_BATCH);
> + if (!nr) {
> spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> - goto out;
> + return 0;
> }
> - while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
> + while (!list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
> struct mb_cache_entry *ce =
> list_entry(mb_cache_lru_list.next,
> struct mb_cache_entry, e_lru_list);
> list_move_tail(&ce->e_lru_list, &free_list);
> __mb_cache_entry_unhash(ce);
> + cond_resched_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> + if (!--nr)
> + break;
> }
> spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> list_for_each_safe(l, ltmp, &free_list) {
> __mb_cache_entry_forget(list_entry(l, struct mb_cache_entry,
> e_lru_list), gfp_mask);
> }
> -out:
> - return (count / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
> + if (!nr) {
> + spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> + goto again;
> + }
Another candidate for a do-while loop.
> + return 0;
> }
>
> -
> /*
> * mb_cache_create() create a new cache
> *
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/nfs/dir.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/nfs/dir.c
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/nfs/dir.c
> @@ -1709,21 +1709,31 @@ static void nfs_access_free_list(struct
> }
> }
>
> -int nfs_access_cache_shrinker(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +int nfs_access_cache_shrinker(struct zone *zone, unsigned long scanned,
> + unsigned long total, unsigned long global, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> + static unsigned long nr_to_scan;
> LIST_HEAD(head);
> - struct nfs_inode *nfsi;
> struct nfs_access_entry *cache;
> -
> - if ((gfp_mask & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL)
> - return (nr_to_scan == 0) ? 0 : -1;
> + unsigned long nr;
>
> spin_lock(&nfs_access_lru_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(nfsi, &nfs_access_lru_list, access_cache_inode_lru) {
> + shrinker_add_scan(&nr_to_scan, scanned, global,
> + atomic_long_read(&nfs_access_nr_entries),
> + DEFAULT_SEEKS * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure / 100);
> + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) || nr_to_scan < SHRINK_BATCH) {
> + spin_unlock(&nfs_access_lru_lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + nr = ACCESS_ONCE(nr_to_scan);
> + nr_to_scan = 0;
That's not safe for concurrent callers. Both could get nr =
nr_to_scan rather than nr(1) = nr_to_scan and nr(2) = 0 which I
think is the intent....
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -2924,14 +2924,29 @@ static int kvm_mmu_remove_some_alloc_mmu
> return kvm_mmu_zap_page(kvm, page) + 1;
> }
>
> -static int mmu_shrink(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +static int mmu_shrink(struct zone *zone, unsigned long scanned,
> + unsigned long total, unsigned long global, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> + static unsigned long nr_to_scan;
> struct kvm *kvm;
> struct kvm *kvm_freed = NULL;
> - int cache_count = 0;
> + unsigned long cache_count = 0;
>
> spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> + cache_count += kvm->arch.n_alloc_mmu_pages -
> + kvm->arch.n_free_mmu_pages;
> + }
>
> + shrinker_add_scan(&nr_to_scan, scanned, global, cache_count,
> + DEFAULT_SEEKS*10);
> +
> +done:
> + cache_count = shrinker_do_scan(&nr_to_scan, SHRINK_BATCH);
> + if (!cache_count) {
> + spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
I note that this use of a static scan count is thread safe because
all the calculations are done under the kvm_lock. THat's three
different ways the shrinkers implement the same functionality
now....
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c
> @@ -838,43 +838,52 @@ static struct rw_semaphore xfs_mount_lis
>
> static int
> xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink(
> - int nr_to_scan,
> + struct zone *zone,
> + unsigned long scanned,
> + unsigned long total,
> + unsigned long global,
> gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> + static unsigned long nr_to_scan;
> + int nr;
> struct xfs_mount *mp;
> struct xfs_perag *pag;
> xfs_agnumber_t ag;
> - int reclaimable = 0;
> -
> - if (nr_to_scan) {
> - if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> - return -1;
> -
> - down_read(&xfs_mount_list_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(mp, &xfs_mount_list, m_mplist) {
> - xfs_inode_ag_iterator(mp, xfs_reclaim_inode, 0,
> - XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG, 1, &nr_to_scan);
> - if (nr_to_scan <= 0)
> - break;
> - }
> - up_read(&xfs_mount_list_lock);
> - }
> + unsigned long nr_reclaimable = 0;
>
> down_read(&xfs_mount_list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(mp, &xfs_mount_list, m_mplist) {
> for (ag = 0; ag < mp->m_sb.sb_agcount; ag++) {
> pag = xfs_perag_get(mp, ag);
> - reclaimable += pag->pag_ici_reclaimable;
> + nr_reclaimable += pag->pag_ici_reclaimable;
> xfs_perag_put(pag);
> }
> }
> + shrinker_add_scan(&nr_to_scan, scanned, global, nr_reclaimable,
> + DEFAULT_SEEKS);
That's not thread safe - it's under a read lock. This code really
needs a shrinker context....
> + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) {
> + up_read(&xfs_mount_list_lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> +done:
> + nr = shrinker_do_scan(&nr_to_scan, SHRINK_BATCH);
> + if (!nr) {
> + up_read(&xfs_mount_list_lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + list_for_each_entry(mp, &xfs_mount_list, m_mplist) {
> + xfs_inode_ag_iterator(mp, xfs_reclaim_inode, 0,
> + XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG, 1, &nr);
> + if (nr <= 0)
> + goto done;
> + }
That's missing conditional reschedules....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>