On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 02:42:24PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > @@ -1603,16 +1603,16 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
> > * the LRU list will go small and be scanned faster than necessary, leading to
> > * unnecessary swapping, thrashing and OOM.
> > */
> > -static int too_many_isolated(struct pglist_data *pgdat, int file,
> > +static bool safe_to_isolate(struct pglist_data *pgdat, int file,
> > struct scan_control *sc)
>
> I prefer the current function name.
>
The restructure is to work with the workqueue api.
> > {
> > unsigned long inactive, isolated;
> >
> > if (current_is_kswapd())
> > - return 0;
> > + return true;
> >
> > - if (!sane_reclaim(sc))
> > - return 0;
> > + if (sane_reclaim(sc))
> > + return true;
>
> We only need a one-line change.
It's bool so the conversion is made to bool while it's being changed
anyway.
> >
> > if (file) {
> > inactive = node_page_state(pgdat, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
> > @@ -1630,7 +1630,7 @@ static int too_many_isolated(struct pglist_data *pgdat, int file,
> > if ((sc->gfp_mask & (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)) == (__GFP_IO | __GFP_FS))
> > inactive >>= 3;
> >
> > - return isolated > inactive;
> > + return isolated < inactive;
> > }
> >
> > static noinline_for_stack void
> > @@ -1719,12 +1719,28 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
> > struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = &lruvec->reclaim_stat;
> >
> > - while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(pgdat, file, sc))) {
> > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > + while (!safe_to_isolate(pgdat, file, sc)) {
> > + long ret;
> > +
> > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(pgdat->isolated_wait,
> > + safe_to_isolate(pgdat, file, sc), HZ/10);
> >
> > /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> > - if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > - return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> > + if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> > + nr_reclaimed = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we reached the timeout, this is direct reclaim, and
> > + * pages cannot be isolated then return. If the situation
>
> Please add something that we would rather shrink slab than go
> another round of nap.
>
That's not necessarily true or even a good idea. It could result in
excessive slab shrinking that is no longer in proportion to LRU scanning
and increased contention within shrinkers.
> > + * persists for a long time then it'll eventually reach
> > + * the no_progress limit in should_reclaim_retry and consider
> > + * going OOM. In this case, do not wake the isolated_wait
> > + * queue as the wakee will still not be able to make progress.
> > + */
> > + if (!ret && !current_is_kswapd() && !safe_to_isolate(pgdat, file, sc))
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > lru_add_drain();
> > @@ -1839,6 +1855,10 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > stat.nr_activate, stat.nr_ref_keep,
> > stat.nr_unmap_fail,
> > sc->priority, file);
> > +
> > +out:
> > + if (waitqueue_active(&pgdat->isolated_wait))
> > + wake_up(&pgdat->isolated_wait);
> > return nr_reclaimed;
> > }
> >
> Is it also needed to check isolated_wait active before kswapd
> takes nap?
>
No because this is where pages were isolated and there is no putback
event that would justify waking the queue. There is a race between
waitqueue_active() and going to sleep that we rely on the timeout to
recover from.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>