On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > > This is the fifth version of the patchset. > > Summary of versions: > The first version has been posted here: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/97973 > (lkml wasn't CCed at the time so I cannot find it in lwn.net > archives). There were no major objections. Except there are. > My primary test case was a parallel kernel build with 2 groups (make > is running with -j4 with a distribution .config in a separate cgroup > without any hard limit) on a 8 CPU machine booted with 1GB memory. I > was mostly interested in 2 setups. Default - no soft limit set and - and > 0 soft limit set to both groups. > The first one should tell us whether the rework regresses the default > behavior while the second one should show us improvements in an extreme > case where both workloads are always over the soft limit. Two kernel builds with 1G of memory means that reclaim is purely trimming the cache every once in a while. Changes in memory pressure are not measurable up to a certain point, because whether you trim old cache or not does not affect the build jobs. Also you tested the no-softlimit case and an extreme soft limit case. Where are the common soft limit cases? > /usr/bin/time -v has been used to collect the statistics and each > configuration had 3 runs after fresh boot without any other load on the > system. > > base is mmotm-2013-05-09-15-57 > baserebase is mmotm-2013-06-05-17-24-63 + patches from the current mmots > without slab shrinkers patchset. > reworkrebase all patches 8 applied on top of baserebase > > * No-limit > User > base: min: 1164.94 max: 1169.75 avg: 1168.31 std: 1.57 runs: 6 > baserebase: min: 1169.46 [100.4%] max: 1176.07 [100.5%] avg: 1172.49 [100.4%] std: 2.38 runs: 6 > reworkrebase: min: 1172.58 [100.7%] max: 1177.43 [100.7%] avg: 1175.53 [100.6%] std: 1.91 runs: 6 > System > base: min: 242.55 max: 245.36 avg: 243.92 std: 1.17 runs: 6 > baserebase: min: 235.36 [97.0%] max: 238.52 [97.2%] avg: 236.70 [97.0%] std: 1.04 runs: 6 > reworkrebase: min: 236.21 [97.4%] max: 239.46 [97.6%] avg: 237.55 [97.4%] std: 1.05 runs: 6 > Elapsed > base: min: 596.81 max: 620.04 avg: 605.52 std: 7.56 runs: 6 > baserebase: min: 666.45 [111.7%] max: 710.89 [114.7%] avg: 690.62 [114.1%] std: 13.85 runs: 6 > reworkrebase: min: 664.05 [111.3%] max: 701.06 [113.1%] avg: 689.29 [113.8%] std: 12.36 runs: 6 > > Elapsed time regressed by 13% wrt. base but it seems that this came from > baserebase which regressed by the same amount. > > * 0-limit > User > base: min: 1188.28 max: 1198.54 avg: 1194.10 std: 3.31 runs: 6 > baserebase: min: 1186.17 [99.8%] max: 1196.46 [99.8%] avg: 1189.75 [99.6%] std: 3.41 runs: 6 > reworkrebase: min: 1169.88 [98.5%] max: 1177.84 [98.3%] avg: 1173.50 [98.3%] std: 2.79 runs: 6 > System > base: min: 248.40 max: 252.00 avg: 250.19 std: 1.38 runs: 6 > baserebase: min: 240.77 [96.9%] max: 246.74 [97.9%] avg: 243.63 [97.4%] std: 2.23 runs: 6 > reworkrebase: min: 235.19 [94.7%] max: 237.43 [94.2%] avg: 236.35 [94.5%] std: 0.86 runs: 6 > Elapsed > base: min: 759.28 max: 805.30 avg: 784.87 std: 15.45 runs: 6 > baserebase: min: 881.69 [116.1%] max: 938.14 [116.5%] avg: 911.68 [116.2%] std: 19.58 runs: 6 > reworkrebase: min: 667.54 [87.9%] max: 718.54 [89.2%] avg: 695.61 [88.6%] std: 17.16 runs: 6 You set one group unlimited and one group to limit 0. I would expect all memory pressure that occurs to be applied to the 0-limit group. Is this happening? If so, wouldn't it be expected that its working set is thrashed? It could be that the patched kernel just shifts some of the pressure to the No-limit group, which would arguably be a regression. But as I said, this is not measurable in realtime. > While the minor faults are within the noise the major faults are reduced > considerably. This looks like an aggressive pageout during the reclaim > and that pageout affects the working set presumably. Please note that > baserebase has even hight number of major page faults than the older > mmotm trree. > > While this looks as a nice win it is fair to say that there are some > workloads that actually benefit from reclaim at 0 priority (from > background reclaim). E.g. an aggressive streaming IO would like to get > rid of as many pages as possible and do not block on the pages under > writeback. This can lead to a higher System time but I generally got > Elapsed which was comparable. > > The following results are from 2 groups configuration on a 8GB machine > (A running stream IO with 4*TotalMem with 0 soft limit, B runnning a > mem_eater which consumes TotalMem-1G without any limit). > System > base: min: 124.88 max: 136.97 avg: 130.77 std: 4.94 runs: 3 > baserebase: min: 102.51 [82.1%] max: 108.84 [79.5%] avg: 104.81 [80.1%] std: 2.86 runs: 3 > reworkrebase: min: 108.29 [86.7%] max: 121.70 [88.9%] avg: 114.60 [87.6%] std: 5.50 runs: 3 > Elapsed > base: min: 398.86 max: 412.81 avg: 407.62 std: 6.23 runs: 3 > baserebase: min: 480.92 [120.6%] max: 497.56 [120.5%] avg: 491.46 [120.6%] std: 7.48 runs: 3 > reworkrebase: min: 397.19 [99.6%] max: 462.57 [112.1%] avg: 436.13 [107.0%] std: 28.12 runs: 3 > > baserebase regresses again by 20% and the series is worse by 7% but it > is still at 89% wrt baserebase so it looks good to me. > > So to wrap this up. The series is still doing good and improves the soft > limit. The soft limit tree is a bunch of isolated code that's completely straight-forward. This is replaced by convoluted memcg iterators, convoluted lruvec shrinkers, spreading even more memcg callbacks with questionable semantics into already complicated generic reclaim code. This series considerably worsens readability and maintainability of both the generic reclaim code as well as the memcg counterpart of it. The point of naturalizing the memcg code is to reduce data structures and redundancy and to break open opaque interfaces like "do soft reclaim and report back". But you didn't actually reduce complexity, you added even more opaque callbacks (should_soft_reclaim? soft_reclaim_eligible?). You didn't integrate soft limit into generic reclaim code, you just made the soft limit API more complicated. And, as I mentioned repeatedly in previous submissions, your benchmark numbers don't actually say anything useful about this change. I'm against merging this upstream at this point. -- 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>