Hi,
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:57:18 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Now, memory cgroup's direct reclaim frees memory from the current node.
> But this has some troubles. In usual, when a set of threads works in
> cooperative way, they are tend to on the same node. So, if they hit
> limits under memcg, it will reclaim memory from themselves, it may be
> active working set.
>
> For example, assume 2 node system which has Node 0 and Node 1
> and a memcg which has 1G limit. After some work, file cacne remains and
> and usages are
> Node 0: 1M
> Node 1: 998M.
>
> and run an application on Node 0, it will eats its foot before freeing
> unnecessary file caches.
>
> This patch adds round-robin for NUMA and adds equal pressure to each
> node. When using cpuset's spread memory feature, this will work very well.
>
> But yes, better algorithm is appreciated.
>
At first, I thought the process may be oom-killed easily if we have many NUMA nodes
and we try to reclaim only from nodes where no processes in the memcg allocate memory.
But considering more, node_zonelists contains zones from other NUMA nodes IIUC,
so it doesn't happen.
Acked-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Except for some typos which have already been pointed out.
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
P.S.
I'm very sorry for my laziness these days. We have a long holidays in Japan
from this weekend, so I hope I can review recent patches about bgreclaim etc
in my home.
> From: Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 1 +
> mm/memcontrol.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> mm/vmscan.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: memcg/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> ===================================================================
> --- memcg.orig/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ memcg/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ extern void mem_cgroup_end_migration(str
> */
> int mem_cgroup_inactive_anon_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> int mem_cgroup_inactive_file_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> +int mem_cgroup_select_victim_node(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> unsigned long mem_cgroup_zone_nr_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> struct zone *zone,
> enum lru_list lru);
> Index: memcg/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- memcg.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ memcg/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> * reclaimed from.
> */
> int last_scanned_child;
> + int last_scanned_node;
> /*
> * Should the accounting and control be hierarchical, per subtree?
> */
> @@ -1472,6 +1473,29 @@ mem_cgroup_select_victim(struct mem_cgro
> }
>
> /*
> + * Selecting a node where we start reclaim from. Because what we need is just
> + * reducing usage counter, start from anywhere is O,K. When considering
> + * memory reclaim from current node, there are pros. and cons.
> + * Freeing memory from current node means freeing memory from a node which
> + * we'll use or we've used. So, it may make LRU bad. And if several threads
> + * hit limits, it will see a contention on a node. But freeing from remote
> + * node mean more costs for memory reclaim because of memory latency.
> + *
> + * Now, we use round-robin. Better algorithm is welcomed.
> + */
> +int mem_cgroup_select_victim_node(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> +{
> + int node;
> +
> + node = next_node(mem->last_scanned_node, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> + if (node == MAX_NUMNODES)
> + node = first_node(node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> +
> + mem->last_scanned_node = node;
> + return node;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * Scan the hierarchy if needed to reclaim memory. We remember the last child
> * we reclaimed from, so that we don't end up penalizing one child extensively
> * based on its position in the children list.
> @@ -4678,6 +4702,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *
> res_counter_init(&mem->memsw, NULL);
> }
> mem->last_scanned_child = 0;
> + mem->last_scanned_node = MAX_NUMNODES;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mem->oom_notify);
>
> if (parent)
> Index: memcg/mm/vmscan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- memcg.orig/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ memcg/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2198,6 +2198,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag
> {
> struct zonelist *zonelist;
> unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> + int nid;
> struct scan_control sc = {
> .may_writepage = !laptop_mode,
> .may_unmap = 1,
> @@ -2208,10 +2209,16 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag
> .mem_cgroup = mem_cont,
> .nodemask = NULL, /* we don't care the placement */
> };
> + /*
> + * Unlike direct reclaim via allo_pages(), memcg's reclaim
> + * don't take care from where we get free resouce. So, the node where
> + * we need to start scan is not need to be current node.
> + */
> + nid = mem_cgroup_select_victim_node(mem_cont);
>
> sc.gfp_mask = (gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) |
> (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
> - zonelist = NODE_DATA(numa_node_id())->node_zonelists;
> + zonelist = NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zonelists;
>
> trace_mm_vmscan_memcg_reclaim_begin(0,
> sc.may_writepage,
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>