On Thu 11-08-11 08:52:52, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:14:25 +0200
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue 09-08-11 19:09:33, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > memcg :avoid node fallback scan if possible.
> > >
> > > Now, try_to_free_pages() scans all zonelist because the page allocator
> > > should visit all zonelists...but that behavior is harmful for memcg.
> > > Memcg just scans memory because it hits limit...no memory shortage
> > > in pased zonelist.
> > >
> > > For example, with following unbalanced nodes
> > >
> > > Node 0 Node 1
> > > File 1G 0
> > > Anon 200M 200M
> > >
> > > memcg will cause swap-out from Node1 at every vmscan.
> > >
> > > Another example, assume 1024 nodes system.
> > > With 1024 node system, memcg will visit 1024 nodes
> > > pages per vmscan... This is overkilling.
> > >
> > > This is why memcg's victim node selection logic doesn't work
> > > as expected.
> > >
> > > This patch is a help for stopping vmscan when we scanned enough.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > OK, I see the point. At first I was afraid that we would make a bigger
> > pressure on the node which triggered the reclaim but as we are selecting
> > t dynamically (mem_cgroup_select_victim_node) - round robin at the
> > moment - it should be fair in the end. More targeted node selection
> > should be even more efficient.
> >
> > I still have a concern about resize_limit code path, though. It uses
> > memcg direct reclaim to get under the new limit (assuming it is lower
> > than the current one).
> > Currently we might reclaim nr_nodes * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX while
> > after your change we have it at SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. This means that
> > mem_cgroup_resize_mem_limit might fail sooner on large NUMA machines
> > (currently it is doing 5 rounds of reclaim before it gives up). I do not
> > consider this to be blocker but maybe we should enhance
> > mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim with a nr_pages argument to tell it how
> > much we want to reclaim (min(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, nr_pages)).
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> Hmm,
>
> > mem_cgroup_resize_mem_limit might fail sooner on large NUMA machines
>
> mem_cgroup_resize_limit() just checks (curusage < prevusage), then,
> I agree reducing the number of scan/reclaim will cause that.
>
> I agree to pass nr_pages to try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages().
What about this (just compile tested)?
---
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
Subject: memcg: add nr_pages argument for hierarchical reclaim
Now that we are doing memcg direct reclaim limited to nr_to_reclaim
pages (introduced by "memcg: stop vmscan when enough done.") we have to
be more careful. Currently we are using SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX which is OK for
most callers but it might cause failures for limit resize or force_empty
code paths on big NUMA machines.
Previously we might have reclaimed up to nr_nodes * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
while now we have it at SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. Both resize and force_empty rely
on reclaiming a certain amount of pages and retrying if their condition is
still not met.
Let's add nr_pages argument to mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim which will
push it further to try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages. We still fall back to
SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX for small requests so the standard code (hot) paths are not
affected by this.
Open questions:
- Should we care about soft limit as well? Currently I am using excess
number of pages for the parameter so it can replace direct query for
the value in mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim but should we push it to
mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone?
I do not think so because we should try to reclaim from more groups in the
hierarchy and also it doesn't get to shrink_zones which has been modified
by the previous patch.
- mem_cgroup_force_empty asks for reclaiming all pages. I guess it should be
OK but will have to think about it some more.
- Aren't we going to reclaim too much when we hit the limit due to THP?
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
Index: linus_tree/include/linux/memcontrol.h
===================================================================
--- linus_tree.orig/include/linux/memcontrol.h 2011-08-11 15:44:43.000000000 +0200
+++ linus_tree/include/linux/memcontrol.h 2011-08-11 15:46:27.000000000 +0200
@@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ extern void mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(st
extern unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
gfp_t gfp_mask, bool noswap,
- struct memcg_scanrecord *rec);
+ struct memcg_scanrecord *rec,
+ unsigned long nr_pages);
extern unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
gfp_t gfp_mask, bool noswap,
struct zone *zone,
Index: linus_tree/mm/memcontrol.c
===================================================================
--- linus_tree.orig/mm/memcontrol.c 2011-08-11 15:36:15.000000000 +0200
+++ linus_tree/mm/memcontrol.c 2011-08-11 16:00:46.000000000 +0200
@@ -1729,12 +1729,15 @@ static void mem_cgroup_record_scanstat(s
* (other groups can be removed while we're walking....)
*
* If shrink==true, for avoiding to free too much, this returns immedieately.
+ * Given nr_pages tells how many pages are we over the soft limit or how many
+ * pages do we want to reclaim in the direct reclaim mode.
*/
static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
struct zone *zone,
gfp_t gfp_mask,
unsigned long reclaim_options,
- unsigned long *total_scanned)
+ unsigned long *total_scanned,
+ unsigned long nr_pages)
{
struct mem_cgroup *victim;
int ret, total = 0;
@@ -1743,11 +1746,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_recla
bool shrink = reclaim_options & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK;
bool check_soft = reclaim_options & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SOFT;
struct memcg_scanrecord rec;
- unsigned long excess;
unsigned long scanned;
- excess = res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&root_mem->res) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
-
/* If memsw_is_minimum==1, swap-out is of-no-use. */
if (!check_soft && !shrink && root_mem->memsw_is_minimum)
noswap = true;
@@ -1785,11 +1785,11 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_recla
}
/*
* We want to do more targeted reclaim.
- * excess >> 2 is not to excessive so as to
+ * nr_pages >> 2 is not to excessive so as to
* reclaim too much, nor too less that we keep
* coming back to reclaim from this cgroup
*/
- if (total >= (excess >> 2) ||
+ if (total >= (nr_pages >> 2) ||
(loop > MEM_CGROUP_MAX_RECLAIM_LOOPS)) {
css_put(&victim->css);
break;
@@ -1816,7 +1816,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_recla
*total_scanned += scanned;
} else
ret = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(victim, gfp_mask,
- noswap, &rec);
+ noswap, &rec, nr_pages);
mem_cgroup_record_scanstat(&rec);
css_put(&victim->css);
/*
@@ -2332,7 +2332,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct m
return CHARGE_WOULDBLOCK;
ret = mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(mem_over_limit, NULL,
- gfp_mask, flags, NULL);
+ gfp_mask, flags, NULL,
+ nr_pages);
if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages)
return CHARGE_RETRY;
/*
@@ -3567,7 +3568,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struc
mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(memcg, NULL, GFP_KERNEL,
MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK,
- NULL);
+ NULL,
+ (val-memlimit) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
curusage = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_USAGE);
/* Usage is reduced ? */
if (curusage >= oldusage)
@@ -3628,7 +3630,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit
mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(memcg, NULL, GFP_KERNEL,
MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP |
MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK,
- NULL);
+ NULL,
+ (val-memswlimit) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
curusage = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_USAGE);
/* Usage is reduced ? */
if (curusage >= oldusage)
@@ -3671,10 +3674,12 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_recl
break;
nr_scanned = 0;
+ excess = res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&mz->mem->res);
reclaimed = mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(mz->mem, zone,
gfp_mask,
MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SOFT,
- &nr_scanned);
+ &nr_scanned,
+ excess >> PAGE_SHIFT);
nr_reclaimed += reclaimed;
*total_scanned += nr_scanned;
spin_lock(&mctz->lock);
@@ -3871,7 +3876,8 @@ try_to_free:
rec.mem = mem;
rec.root = mem;
progress = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(mem, GFP_KERNEL,
- false, &rec);
+ false, &rec,
+ mem->res.usage >> PAGE_SHIFT);
if (!progress) {
nr_retries--;
/* maybe some writeback is necessary */
Index: linus_tree/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- linus_tree.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2011-08-11 15:44:43.000000000 +0200
+++ linus_tree/mm/vmscan.c 2011-08-11 16:41:22.000000000 +0200
@@ -2340,7 +2340,8 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zon
unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *mem_cont,
gfp_t gfp_mask,
bool noswap,
- struct memcg_scanrecord *rec)
+ struct memcg_scanrecord *rec,
+ unsigned long nr_pages)
{
struct zonelist *zonelist;
unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
@@ -2350,7 +2351,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag
.may_writepage = !laptop_mode,
.may_unmap = 1,
.may_swap = !noswap,
- .nr_to_reclaim = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
+ .nr_to_reclaim = max_t(unsigned long, nr_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
.order = 0,
.mem_cgroup = mem_cont,
.memcg_record = rec,
--
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@xxxxxxxxx. 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>