Hello, Mel.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Mel.
> > Sorry for too late question.
> >
>
> No need to apologise at all.
>
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> > > either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> > > This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > mm/vmscan.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 7d5a932..84375b2 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -2661,9 +2661,10 @@ static bool prepare_kswapd_sleep(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
> > > */
> > > static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > > struct scan_control *sc,
> > > - unsigned long lru_pages)
> > > + unsigned long lru_pages,
> > > + bool shrinking_slab)
> > > {
> > > - unsigned long nr_slab;
> > > + unsigned long nr_slab = 0;
> > > struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
> > > struct shrink_control shrink = {
> > > .gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask,
> > > @@ -2673,9 +2674,15 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > > sc->nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, high_wmark_pages(zone));
> > > shrink_zone(zone, sc);
> > >
> > > - reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> > > - nr_slab = shrink_slab(&shrink, sc->nr_scanned, lru_pages);
> > > - sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Slabs are shrunk for each zone once per priority or if the zone
> > > + * being balanced is otherwise unreclaimable
> > > + */
> > > + if (shrinking_slab || !zone_reclaimable(zone)) {
> > > + reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> > > + nr_slab = shrink_slab(&shrink, sc->nr_scanned, lru_pages);
> > > + sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (nr_slab == 0 && !zone_reclaimable(zone))
> > > zone->all_unreclaimable = 1;
> >
> > Why shrink_slab() is called here?
>
> Preserves existing behaviour.
Yes, but, with this patch, existing behaviour is changed, that is, we call
shrink_slab() once per priority. For now, there is no reason this function
is called here. How about separating it and executing it outside of
zone loop?
We can do it with another zone loop in order to decide a
zone->all_unreclaimble. Below is pseudo code from my quick thought.
for each zone
shrink_zone()
end
nr_slab = shrink_slab()
if (nr_slab == 0) {
for each zone
if (!zone_reclaimable)
zone->all_unreclaimble = 1
end
end
}
>
> > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > because shrink_slab() is not directly related to a specific zone.
> >
>
> This is true and has been the case for a long time. The slab shrinkers
> are not zone aware and it is complicated by the fact that slab usage can
> indirectly pin memory on other zones. Consider for example a slab object
> that is an inode entry that is allocated from the Normal zone on a
> 32-bit machine. Reclaiming may free memory from the Highmem zone.
>
> It's less obvious a problem on 64-bit machines but freeing slab objects
> from a zone like DMA32 can indirectly free memory from the Normal zone or
> even another node entirely.
>
> > And this is a question not related to this patch.
> > Why nr_slab is used here to decide zone->all_unreclaimable?
>
> Slab is not directly associated with a slab but as reclaiming slab can
> free memory from unpredictable zones we do not consider a zone to be
> fully unreclaimable until we cannot shrink slab any more.
>
> You may be thinking that this is extremely heavy handed and you're
> right, it is.
>
> > nr_slab is not directly related whether a specific zone is reclaimable
> > or not, and, moreover, nr_slab is not directly related to number of
> > reclaimed pages. It just say some objects in the system are freed.
> >
>
> All true, it's the indirect relation between slab objects and the memory
> that is freed when slab objects are reclaimed that has to be taken into
> account.
>
> > This question comes from my ignorance, so please enlighten me.
> >
>
> I hope this clarifies matters.
Very helpful :)
Thanks.
>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs
>
> --
> 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/ .
> 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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>