On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:33:02AM -0400, josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
>
> Following patches will greatly increase our aggressiveness in slab
> reclaim, so we need checks in place to make sure we stop trying to
> reclaim slab once we've hit our reclaim target.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index cf23de9..77a887a 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -305,11 +305,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_shrinker);
>
> #define SHRINK_BATCH 128
>
> -static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> +static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct scan_control *sc,
> + struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> struct shrinker *shrinker,
> unsigned long nr_scanned,
> unsigned long nr_eligible)
> {
> + struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
> unsigned long freed = 0;
> unsigned long long delta;
> long total_scan;
> @@ -394,14 +396,18 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
>
> shrinkctl->nr_to_scan = nr_to_scan;
> ret = shrinker->scan_objects(shrinker, shrinkctl);
> + if (reclaim_state) {
> + sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> + reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> + }
> if (ret == SHRINK_STOP)
> break;
> freed += ret;
> -
> count_vm_events(SLABS_SCANNED, nr_to_scan);
> total_scan -= nr_to_scan;
> scanned += nr_to_scan;
> -
> + if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim)
> + break;
> cond_resched();
> }
>
> @@ -452,7 +458,7 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> *
> * Returns the number of reclaimed slab objects.
> */
> -static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> +static unsigned long shrink_slab(struct scan_control *sc, int nid,
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> unsigned long nr_scanned,
> unsigned long nr_eligible)
> @@ -478,8 +484,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> }
>
> list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
> - struct shrink_control sc = {
> - .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
> + struct shrink_control shrinkctl = {
> + .gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask,
> .nid = nid,
> .memcg = memcg,
> };
> @@ -494,9 +500,12 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> continue;
>
> if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE))
> - sc.nid = 0;
> + shrinkctl.nid = 0;
>
> - freed += do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, nr_scanned, nr_eligible);
> + freed += do_shrink_slab(sc, &shrinkctl, shrinker, nr_scanned,
> + nr_eligible);
> + if (sc->nr_to_reclaim <= sc->nr_reclaimed)
> + break;
> }
>
Such bailout ruins fair aging so that a specific shrinker in head of the list
will be exhausted. Also, without fair aging, it's hard to reclaim a slab page
mixed several type objects. I don't think it's a good idea to bail out after
passing huge aggressive scan number.
--
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>
