On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 01:50:27PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:05:09AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:16:39PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > Direct reclaim has been replaced by kswapd reclaim in pretty much all > > > common memory pressure situations, so this code most likely doesn't > > > accomplish the described effect anymore. The previous patch wakes up > > > flushers for all reclaimers when we encounter dirty pages at the tail > > > end of the LRU. Remove the crufty old direct reclaim invocation. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > In general I like this. I worried first that if kswapd is blocked > > writing pages that it won't reach the wakeup_flusher_threads but the > > previous patch handles it. > > > > Now though, it occurs to me with the last patch that we always writeout > > the world when flushing threads. This may not be a great idea. Consider > > for example if there is a heavy writer of short-lived tmp files. In such a > > case, it is possible for the files to be truncated before they even hit the > > disk. However, if there are multiple "writeout the world" calls, these may > > now be hitting the disk. Furthermore, multiplle kswapd and direct reclaimers > > could all be requested to writeout the world and each request unplugs. > > > > Is it possible to maintain the property of writing back pages relative > > to the numbers of pages scanned or have you determined already that it's > > not necessary? > > That's what I started out with - waking the flushers for nr_taken. I > was using a silly test case that wrote < dirty background limit and > then allocated a burst of anon memory. When the dirty data is linear, > the bigger IO requests are beneficial. They don't exhaust struct > request (like kswapd 4k IO routinely does, and SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX is > only 32), and they require less frequent plugging. > Understood. > Force-flushing temporary files under memory pressure is a concern - > although the most recently dirtied files would get queued last, giving > them still some time to get truncated - but I'm wary about splitting > the flush requests too aggressively when we DO sustain throngs of > dirty pages hitting the reclaim scanners. > That's fair enough. It's rare to see a case where a tmp file being written instead of truncated in RAM causes problems. The only one that really springs to mind is dbench3 whose "performance" often relied on whether the files were truncated before writeback. > I didn't test this with the real workload that gave us problems yet, > though, because deploying enough machines to get a good sample size > takes 1-2 days and to run through the full load spectrum another 4-5. > So it's harder to fine-tune these patches. > > But this is a legit concern. I'll try to find out what happens when we > reduce the wakeups to nr_taken. > > Given the problem these patches address, though, would you be okay > with keeping this patch in -mm? We're too far into 4.10 to merge it > upstream now, and I should have data on more precise wakeups before > the next merge window. > Yeah, that's fine. My concern is mostly theoritical but it's something to watch out for in future regression reports. It should be relatively easy to spot -- workload generates lots of short-lived tmp files for whatever reason and reports that write IO is higher causing the system to stall other IO requests. Thanks. -- 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>
