On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:42:06AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:37:48AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:11:18PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:08:09AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi Michal,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue 24-02-15 17:18:14, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > Recently, Shaohua reported that MADV_FREE is much slower than
> > > > > > MADV_DONTNEED in his MADV_FREE bomb test. The reason is many of
> > > > > > applications went to stall with direct reclaim since kswapd's
> > > > > > reclaim speed isn't fast than applications's allocation speed
> > > > > > so that it causes lots of stall and lock contention.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure I understand this correctly. So the issue is that there is
> > > > > huge number of MADV_FREE on the LRU and they are not close to the tail
> > > > > of the list so the reclaim has to do a lot of work before it starts
> > > > > dropping them?
> > > >
> > > > No, Shaohua already tested deactivating of hinted pages to head/tail
> > > > of inactive anon LRU and he said it didn't solve his problem.
> > > > I thought main culprit was scanning/rotating/throttling in
> > > > direct reclaim path.
> > >
> > > I investigated my workload and found most of slowness came from swapin.
> > >
> > > 1) dontneed: 1,612 swapin
> > > 2) madvfree: 879,585 swapin
> > >
> > > If we find hinted pages were already swapped out when syscall is called,
> > > it's pointless to keep the pages in pte. Instead, free the cold page
> > > because swapin is more expensive than (alloc page + zeroing).
> > >
> > > I tested below quick fix and reduced swapin from 879,585 to 1,878.
> > > Elapsed time was
> > >
> > > 1) dontneed: 6.10user 233.50system 0:50.44elapsed
> > > 2) madvfree + below patch: 6.70user 339.14system 1:04.45elapsed
> > >
> > > Although it was not good as throttling, it's better than old and
> > > it's orthogoral with throttling so I hope to merge this first
> > > than arguable throttling. Any comments?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> > > index 6d0fcb8921c2..d41ae76d3e54 100644
> > > --- a/mm/madvise.c
> > > +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> > > @@ -274,7 +274,9 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > > spinlock_t *ptl;
> > > pte_t *pte, ptent;
> > > struct page *page;
> > > + swp_entry_t entry;
> > > unsigned long next;
> > > + int rss = 0;
> > >
> > > next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
> > > if (pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)) {
> > > @@ -293,9 +295,19 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > > for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > ptent = *pte;
> > >
> > > - if (!pte_present(ptent))
> > > + if (pte_none(ptent))
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > + if (!pte_present(ptent)) {
> > > + entry = pte_to_swp_entry(ptent);
> > > + if (non_swap_entry(entry))
> > > + continue;
> > > + rss--;
> > > + free_swap_and_cache(entry);
> > > + pte_clear_not_present_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
> > > + continue;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, ptent);
> > > if (!page)
> > > continue;
> > > @@ -326,6 +338,14 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > > set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> > > tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + if (rss) {
> > > + if (current->mm == mm)
> > > + sync_mm_rss(mm);
> > > +
> > > + add_mm_counter(mm, MM_SWAPENTS, rss);
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > This looks make sense, but I'm wondering why it can help and if this can help
> > real workload. Let me have an example. Say there is 1G memory, workload uses
>
> void *ptr1 = malloc(len); /* allocator mmap new chunk */
> touch_iow_dirty(ptr1, len);
> ..
> ..
> ..
> .. /* swapout happens */
> free(ptr1); /* allocator calls MADV_FREE on the chunk */
>
> void *ptr2 = malloc(len) /* allocator reuses previous chunk */
> touch_iow_dirty(ptr2, len); /* swapin happens to read garbage and application overwrite the garbage */
>
> It's really unnecessary cost.
>
>
> > 800M memory with DONTNEED, there should be no swap. With FREE, workload might
> > use more than 1G memory and trigger swap. I thought the case (DONTNEED doesn't
> > trigger swap) is more suitable to evaluate the performance of the patch.
>
> I think above example is really clear and possible scenario.
> Could you give me more concrete example to test if you want?
Sorry, no, I don't have concrete example either. My magor concern is workload
which has no swap with DONTNEED and has possible swap with FREE.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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>