On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:07:12AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Convert the driver shrinkers to the new API. Most changes are
> compile tested only because I either don't have the hardware or it's
> staging stuff.
Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Before reviewing the bcache
changes, a high level comment:
One of my issues when implementing the shrinker for bcache is that the
shrinker API has no notion of how big the cached objects are. There
seems to be an unspoken assumption that objects are page sized - or
maybe they're at most page sized? I dunno.
Anyways, this was a source of no small amount of consternation and
frustration and bugs, and still makes things more fragile and uglier
than they should be - bcache btree nodes are typically on the order of a
quarter megabyte, and they're potentially variable sized too (though not
in practice yet and maybe never).
Have you given any thought to whether this is fixable? IMO it might
improve the shrinker API and various implementations as a whole if
instead of objects everything just talked about some amount of memory in
bytes.
We might still need some notion of object size to deal with trying to
free a smaller amount of memory than a given shrinker's object size (but
perhaps not if the core shrinker code kept a running total of the
difference between amount of memory asked to free/memory actually
freed).
Also, this would mean we could tell userspace how much memory is in the
various caches (and potentially freeable), there's no sane way for
userspace to figure this out today.
Thoughts?
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c b/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> index 36688d6..e305f96 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> @@ -599,24 +599,12 @@ static int mca_reap(struct btree *b, struct closure *cl, unsigned min_order)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int bch_mca_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> +static long bch_mca_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> {
> struct cache_set *c = container_of(shrink, struct cache_set, shrink);
> struct btree *b, *t;
> unsigned long i, nr = sc->nr_to_scan;
> -
> - if (c->shrinker_disabled)
> - return 0;
> -
> - if (c->try_harder)
> - return 0;
This is a behaviour change - after your patch, we only check for
c->shrinker_disabled or c->try_harder when counting objects, not
freeing them.
So there's a potential race if one of them (c->try_harder would be the
important one, that means allocating memory for a btree node failed so
there's a thread that's reclaiming from the btree cache in order to
allocate a new btree node) is flipped in between the two calls. That
should be no big deal, though i'm a tiny bit uncomfortable about it.
There's a second user visible change - previously, c->shrinker_disabled
(controlled via userspace through sysfs) would have the side effect of
disabling prune_cache (called via sysfs) - your patch changes that. It
probably makes more sense your way but it ought to be noted somewhere.
> -
> - /*
> - * If nr == 0, we're supposed to return the number of items we have
> - * cached. Not allowed to return -1.
> - */
> - if (!nr)
> - return mca_can_free(c) * c->btree_pages;
> + long freed = 0;
>
> /* Return -1 if we can't do anything right now */
> if (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)
> @@ -629,14 +617,14 @@ static int bch_mca_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
>
> i = 0;
> list_for_each_entry_safe(b, t, &c->btree_cache_freeable, list) {
> - if (!nr)
> + if (freed >= nr)
> break;
>
> if (++i > 3 &&
> !mca_reap(b, NULL, 0)) {
> mca_data_free(b);
> rw_unlock(true, b);
> - --nr;
> + freed++;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -647,7 +635,7 @@ static int bch_mca_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> if (list_empty(&c->btree_cache))
> goto out;
>
> - for (i = 0; nr && i < c->bucket_cache_used; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < c->bucket_cache_used; i++) {
This is a bug (but it's probably more my fault for writing it too subtly
in the first place): previously, we broke out of the loop when nr
reached 0 (and we'd freed all the objects we were asked to).
After your change it doesn't break out of the loop until trying to free
_everything_ - which will break things very badly since this causes us
to free our reserve. You'll want a if (freed >= nr) break; like you
added in the previous loop.
(The reserve should be documented here too though, I'll write a patch
for that...)
> b = list_first_entry(&c->btree_cache, struct btree, list);
> list_rotate_left(&c->btree_cache);
>
> @@ -656,14 +644,26 @@ static int bch_mca_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> mca_bucket_free(b);
> mca_data_free(b);
> rw_unlock(true, b);
> - --nr;
> + freed++;
> } else
> b->accessed = 0;
> }
> out:
> - nr = mca_can_free(c) * c->btree_pages;
> mutex_unlock(&c->bucket_lock);
> - return nr;
> + return freed;
> +}
> +
> +static long bch_mca_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> +{
> + struct cache_set *c = container_of(shrink, struct cache_set, shrink);
> +
> + if (c->shrinker_disabled)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (c->try_harder)
> + return 0;
> +
> + return mca_can_free(c) * c->btree_pages;
> }
>
> void bch_btree_cache_free(struct cache_set *c)
> @@ -732,7 +732,8 @@ int bch_btree_cache_alloc(struct cache_set *c)
> c->verify_data = NULL;
> #endif
>
> - c->shrink.shrink = bch_mca_shrink;
> + c->shrink.count_objects = bch_mca_count;
> + c->shrink.scan_objects = bch_mca_scan;
> c->shrink.seeks = 4;
> c->shrink.batch = c->btree_pages * 2;
> register_shrinker(&c->shrink);
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c b/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c
> index 4d9cca4..fa8d048 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c
> @@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ STORE(__bch_cache_set)
> struct shrink_control sc;
> sc.gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL;
> sc.nr_to_scan = strtoul_or_return(buf);
> - c->shrink.shrink(&c->shrink, &sc);
> + c->shrink.scan_objects(&c->shrink, &sc);
> }
>
> sysfs_strtoul(congested_read_threshold_us,
The rest of the changes look good.
As long as you're looking at the code (and complaining about the quality
of the various shrinkers :P), if you've got any suggestions/specific
complaints about the bcache shrinker I'll see what I can do to improve
it.
--
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>