On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:23 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03.02.2021 20:20, Yang Shi wrote: > > The number of deferred objects might get windup to an absurd number, and it > > results in clamp of slab objects. It is undesirable for sustaining workingset. > > > > So shrink deferred objects proportional to priority and cap nr_deferred to twice > > of cache items. > > > > The idea is borrowed fron Dave Chinner's patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191031234618.15403-13-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Tested with kernel build and vfs metadata heavy workload in our production > > environment, no regression is spotted so far. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> > > For some time I was away from this do_shrink_slab() magic formulas and recent changes, > so I hope somebody else, who is being in touch with this, can review. Yes, I agree it is intimidating. The patch has been tested in our test and production environment for a couple of months, so far no regression is spotted. Of course it doesn't mean it will not incur regression for other workloads. My plan is to leave it stay in -mm then linux-next for a while for a broader test. The first 10 patches could go to Linus's tree separately. > > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 40 +++++----------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 574d920c4cab..d0a86170854b 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -649,7 +649,6 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl, > > */ > > nr = count_nr_deferred(shrinker, shrinkctl); > > > > - total_scan = nr; > > if (shrinker->seeks) { > > delta = freeable >> priority; > > delta *= 4; > > @@ -663,37 +662,9 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl, > > delta = freeable / 2; > > } > > > > + total_scan = nr >> priority; > > total_scan += delta; > > - if (total_scan < 0) { > > - pr_err("shrink_slab: %pS negative objects to delete nr=%ld\n", > > - shrinker->scan_objects, total_scan); > > - total_scan = freeable; > > - next_deferred = nr; > > - } else > > - next_deferred = total_scan; > > - > > - /* > > - * We need to avoid excessive windup on filesystem shrinkers > > - * due to large numbers of GFP_NOFS allocations causing the > > - * shrinkers to return -1 all the time. This results in a large > > - * nr being built up so when a shrink that can do some work > > - * comes along it empties the entire cache due to nr >>> > > - * freeable. This is bad for sustaining a working set in > > - * memory. > > - * > > - * Hence only allow the shrinker to scan the entire cache when > > - * a large delta change is calculated directly. > > - */ > > - if (delta < freeable / 4) > > - total_scan = min(total_scan, freeable / 2); > > - > > - /* > > - * Avoid risking looping forever due to too large nr value: > > - * never try to free more than twice the estimate number of > > - * freeable entries. > > - */ > > - if (total_scan > freeable * 2) > > - total_scan = freeable * 2; > > + total_scan = min(total_scan, (2 * freeable)); > > > > trace_mm_shrink_slab_start(shrinker, shrinkctl, nr, > > freeable, delta, total_scan, priority); > > @@ -732,10 +703,9 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl, > > cond_resched(); > > } > > > > - if (next_deferred >= scanned) > > - next_deferred -= scanned; > > - else > > - next_deferred = 0; > > + next_deferred = max_t(long, (nr - scanned), 0) + total_scan; > > + next_deferred = min(next_deferred, (2 * freeable)); > > + > > /* > > * move the unused scan count back into the shrinker in a > > * manner that handles concurrent updates. > > Thanks > >
