On Thu 09-06-11 17:00:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 02-06-11 22:25:29, Ying Han wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Currently, soft limit reclaim is entered from kswapd, where it selects
> [...]
> > >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > >> index c7d4b44..0163840 100644
> > >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > >> @@ -1988,9 +1988,13 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > >> unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
> > >> unsigned long scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> > >> unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> > >> + int epriority = priority;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem))
> > >> + epriority -= 1;
> > >
> > > Here we grant the ability to shrink from all the memcgs, but only
> > > higher the priority for those exceed the soft_limit. That is a design
> > > change
> > > for the "soft_limit" which giving a hint to which memcgs to reclaim
> > > from first under global memory pressure.
> >
> >
> > Basically, we shouldn't reclaim from a memcg under its soft_limit
> > unless we have trouble reclaim pages from others.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Something like the following makes better sense:
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index bdc2fd3..b82ba8c 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1989,6 +1989,8 @@ restart:
> > throttle_vm_writeout(sc->gfp_mask);
> > }
> >
> > +#define MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY 2
> > +
> > static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > struct scan_control *sc)
> > {
> > @@ -2001,13 +2003,13 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
> > unsigned long scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> > unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> > - int epriority = priority;
> >
> > - if (mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem))
> > - epriority -= 1;
> > + if (!mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem) &&
> > + priority > MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY)
> > + continue;
>
> yes, this makes sense but I am not sure about the right(tm) value of the
> MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY. 2 sounds too low.
There is also another problem. I have just realized that this code path
is shared with the cgroup direct reclaim. We shouldn't care about soft
limit in such a situation. It would be just a wasting of cycles. So we
have to:
if (current_is_kswapd() &&
!mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem) &&
priority > MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY)
continue;
Maybe the condition would have to be more complex for per-cgroup
background reclaim, though.
> You would do quite a
> lot of loops
> (DEFAULT_PRIORITY-MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY) * zones * memcg_count
> without any progress (assuming that all of them are under soft limit
> which doesn't sound like a totally artificial configuration) until you
> allow reclaiming from groups that are under soft limit. Then, when you
> finally get to reclaiming, you scan rather aggressively.
>
> Maybe something like 3/4 of DEFAULT_PRIORITY? You would get 3 times
> over all (unbalanced) zones and all cgroups that are above the limit
> (scanning max{1/4096+1/2048+1/1024, 3*SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX} of the LRUs for
> each cgroup) which could be enough to collect the low hanging fruit.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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>