On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 11:18:23PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Mel, I have identified the overly aggressive behavior you noticed to be a bug > > > in the at-least-one-pass patch, that would ask the shrinkers to scan the full > > > batch even when total_scan < batch. They would do their best for it, and > > > eventually succeed. I also went further, and made that the behavior of direct > > > reclaim only - The only case that really matter for memcg, and one in which > > > we could argue that we are more or less desperate for small squeezes in memory. > > > Thank you very much for spotting this. > > > > > > > I haven't seen the relevant code yet but in general I do not think it is > > a good idea for direct reclaim to potentially reclaim all of slabs like > > this. Direct reclaim does not necessarily mean the system is desperate > > for small amounts of memory. Lets take a few examples where it would be > > a poor decision to reclaim all the slab pages within direct reclaim. > > > > 1. Direct reclaim triggers because kswapd is stalled writing pages for > > memcg (see code near comment "memcg doesn't have any dirty pages > > throttling"). A memcg dirtying its limit of pages may cause a lot of > > direct reclaim and dumping all the slab pages > > > > 2. Direct reclaim triggers because kswapd is writing pages out to swap. > > Similar to memcg above, kswapd failing to make forward progress triggers > > direct reclaim which then potentially reclaims all slab > > > > 3. Direct reclaim triggers because kswapd waits on congestion as there > > are too many pages under writeback. In this case, a large amounts of > > writes to slow storage like USB could result in all slab being reclaimed > > > > 4. The system has been up a long time, memory is fragmented and the page > > allocator enters direct reclaim/compaction to allocate THPs. It would > > be very unfortunate if allocating a THP reclaimed all the slabs > > > > All that is potentially bad and likely to make Dave put in his cranky > > pants. I would much prefer if direct reclaim and kswapd treated slab > > similarly and not ask the shrinkers to do a full scan unless the alternative > > is OOM kill. > > Just keep in mind that I really don't care about micro-behaviours of > the shrinker algorithm. What I look at is the overall cache balance > under steady state workloads, the response to step changes in > workload and what sort of overhead is seen to maintain system > balance under memory pressure. So unless a micro-behaviour has an > impact at the macro level, I just don't care one way or the other. > Ok, that's fine by me because I think what you are worried about can happen too easily right now. A system in a steady state of streaming IO can decide to reclaim excessively in direct reclaim becomes active -- a macro level change for a steady state workload. However, Glauber has already said he will either make a priority check in direct reclaim or make it memcg specific. I'm happy with either as either should avoid a large impact at a macro level in response to a small change in the workload pattern. > But I can put on cranky panks if you want, Mel. :) > Unjustified cranky pants just isn't the same :) > > > Running postmark on the final result (at least on my 2-node box) show something > > > a lot saner. We are still stealing more inodes than before, but by a factor of > > > around 15 %. Since the correct balance is somewhat heuristic anyway - I > > > personally think this is acceptable. But I am waiting to hear from you on this > > > matter. Meanwhile, I am investigating further to try to pinpoint where exactly > > > this comes from. It might either be because of the new node-aware behavior, or > > > because of the increased calculation precision in the first patch. > > > > > > > I'm going to defer to Dave as to whether that increased level of slab > > reclaim is acceptable or not. > > Depends on how it changes the balance of the system. I won't know > that until I run some new tests. > 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>