On Mon 14-01-19 10:12:37, Baptiste Lepers wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 4:53 AM Daniel Jordan > <daniel.m.jordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:59:38PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 11-01-19 16:52:17, Baptiste Lepers wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > We have a performance issue with the page cache. One of our workload > > > > spends more than 50% of it's time in the lru_locks called by > > > > shrink_inactive_list in mm/vmscan.c. > > > > > > Who does contend on the lock? Are there direct reclaimers or is it > > > solely kswapd with paths that are faulting the new page cache in? > > > > Yes, and could you please post your performance data showing the time in > > lru_lock? Whatever you have is fine, but using perf with -g would give > > callstacks and help answer Michal's question about who's contending. > > Thanks for the quick answer. > > The time spent in the lru_lock is mainly due to direct reclaimers > (reading an mmaped page that causes some readahead to happen). We have > tried to play with readahead values, but it doesn't change performance > a lot. We have disabled swap on the machine, so kwapd doesn't run. kswapd runs even without swap storage. > Our programs run in memory cgroups, but I don't think that the issue > directly comes from cgroups (I might be wrong though). Do you use hard/high limit on those cgroups. Because those would be a source of the reclaim. > Here is the callchain that I have using perf report --no-children; > (Paste here https://pastebin.com/151x4QhR ) > > 44.30% swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] intel_idle > # The machine is idle mainly because it waits in that lru_locks, > which is the 2nd function in the report: > 10.98% testradix [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > |--10.33%--_raw_spin_lock_irq > | | > | --10.12%--shrink_inactive_list > | shrink_node_memcg > | shrink_node > | do_try_to_free_pages > | try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages > | try_charge > | mem_cgroup_try_charge And here it shows this is indeed the case. You are hitting the hard limit and that causes direct reclaim to shrink the memcg. If you do not really need a strong isolation between cgroups then I would suggest to not set the hard limit and rely on the global memory reclaim to do the background reclaim which is less aggressive and more pro-active. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
