On Wed 01-03-17 12:36:28, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:40:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 28-02-17 16:40:04, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > 246e87a93934 ("memcg: fix get_scan_count() for small targets") sought
> > > to avoid high reclaim priorities for memcg by forcing it to scan a
> > > minimum amount of pages when lru_pages >> priority yielded nothing.
> > > This was done at a time when reclaim decisions like dirty throttling
> > > were tied to the priority level.
> > >
> > > Nowadays, the only meaningful thing still tied to priority dropping
> > > below DEF_PRIORITY - 2 is gating whether laptop_mode=1 is generally
> > > allowed to write. But that is from an era where direct reclaim was
> > > still allowed to call ->writepage, and kswapd nowadays avoids writes
> > > until it's scanned every clean page in the system. Potential changes
> > > to how quick sc->may_writepage could trigger are of little concern.
> > >
> > > Remove the force_scan stuff, as well as the ugly multi-pass target
> > > calculation that it necessitated.
> >
> > I _really_ like this, I hated the multi-pass part. One thig that I am
> > worried about and changelog doesn't mention it is what we are going to
> > do about small (<16MB) memcgs. On one hand they were already ignored in
> > the global reclaim so this is nothing really new but maybe we want to
> > preserve the behavior for the memcg reclaim at least which would reduce
> > side effect of this patch which is a great cleanup otherwise. Or at
> > least be explicit about this in the changelog.
>
> <16MB groups are a legitimate concern during global reclaim, but we
> have done it this way for a long time and it never seemed to have
> mattered in practice.
Yeah, this is not really easy to spot because there are usually other
memcgs which can be reclaimed.
> And for limit reclaim, this should be much less of a concern. It just
> means we no longer scan these groups at DEF_PRIORITY and will have to
> increase the scan window. I don't see a problem with that. And that
> consequence of higher priorities is right in the patch subject.
well the memory pressure spills over to others in the same hierarchy.
But I agree this shouldn't a disaster.
> > Btw. why cannot we simply force scan at least SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
> > unconditionally?
> >
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the cgroup's already been deleted, make sure to
> > > + * scrape out the remaining cache.
> > Also make sure that small memcgs will not get
> > unnoticed during the memcg reclaim
> >
> > > + */
> > > + if (!scan && !mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
> >
> > if (!scan && (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg) || !global_reclaim(sc)))
>
> With this I'd be worried about regressing the setups pointed out in
> 6f04f48dc9c0 ("mm: only force scan in reclaim when none of the LRUs
> are big enough.").
>
> Granted, that patch is a little dubious. IMO, we should be steering
> the LRU balance through references and, in that case in particular,
> with swappiness. Using the default 60 for zswap is too low.
>
> Plus, I would expect the refault detection code that was introduced
> around the same time as this patch to counter-act the hot file
> thrashing that is mentioned in that patch's changelog.
>
> Nevertheless, it seems a bit gratuitous to go against that change so
> directly when global reclaim hasn't historically been a problem with
> groups <16MB. Limit reclaim should be fine too.
As I've already mentioned, I really love this patch I just think this is
a subtle side effect. The above reasoning should be good enough I
believe.
Anyway I forgot to add, I will leave the decision whether to have this
in a separate patch or just added to the changelog to you.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
--
Michal Hocko
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>
