On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 04:03:16PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> On that basis, it may justify ripping out the may_shrinkslab logic
> everywhere. The downside is that some microbenchmarks will notice.
> Specifically IO benchmarks that fill memory and reread (particularly
> rereading the metadata via any inode operation) may show reduced
> results. Such benchmarks can be strongly affected by whether the inode
> information is still memory resident and watermark boosting reduces
> the changes the data is still resident in memory. Technically still a
> regression but a tunable one.
>
> Hence the following "it builds" patch that has zero supporting data on
> whether it's a good idea or not.
>
This is a more complete version of the same patch that summaries the
problem and includes data from my own testing
---8<---
mm, vmscan: Do not special-case slab reclaim when watermarks are boosted
Dave Chinner reported a problem pointing a finger at commit
1c30844d2dfe ("mm: reclaim small amounts of memory when an
external fragmentation event occurs"). The report is extensive (see
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20190807091858.2857-1-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/)
and it's worth recording the most relevant parts (colorful language and
typos included).
When running a simple, steady state 4kB file creation test to
simulate extracting tarballs larger than memory full of small
files into the filesystem, I noticed that once memory fills up
the cache balance goes to hell.
The workload is creating one dirty cached inode for every dirty
page, both of which should require a single IO each to clean and
reclaim, and creation of inodes is throttled by the rate at which
dirty writeback runs at (via balance dirty pages). Hence the ingest
rate of new cached inodes and page cache pages is identical and
steady. As a result, memory reclaim should quickly find a steady
balance between page cache and inode caches.
The moment memory fills, the page cache is reclaimed at a much
faster rate than the inode cache, and evidence suggests taht
the inode cache shrinker is not being called when large batches
of pages are being reclaimed. In roughly the same time period
that it takes to fill memory with 50% pages and 50% slab caches,
memory reclaim reduces the page cache down to just dirty pages
and slab caches fill the entirity of memory.
The LRU is largely full of dirty pages, and we're getting spikes
of random writeback from memory reclaim so it's all going to shit.
Behaviour never recovers, the page cache remains pinned at just
dirty pages, and nothing I could tune would make any difference.
vfs_cache_pressure makes no difference - I would it up so high
it should trim the entire inode caches in a singel pass, yet it
didn't do anything. It was clear from tracing and live telemetry
that the shrinkers were pretty much not running except when
there was absolutely no memory free at all, and then they did
the minimum necessary to free memory to make progress.
So I went looking at the code, trying to find places where pages
got reclaimed and the shrinkers weren't called. There's only one
- kswapd doing boosted reclaim as per commit 1c30844d2dfe ("mm:
reclaim small amounts of memory when an external fragmentation
event occurs").
The watermark boosting introduced by the commit is triggered in response
to an allocation "fragmentation event". The boosting was not intended
to target THP specifically. However, with Dave's perfectly reasonable
workload, fragmentation events can be very common given the ratio of slab
to page cache allocations so boosting remains active for long periods
of time.
As high-order allocations typically use compaction and compaction cannot
move slab pages the decision was made in the commit to special-case kswapd
when watermarks are boosted -- kswapd avoids reclaiming slab as reclaiming
slab does not directly help compaction.
As Dave notes, this decision means that slab can be artificially protected
for long periods of time and messes up the balance with slab and page
caches.
Removing the special casing can still indirectly help fragmentation by
avoiding fragmentation-causing events due to slab allocation as pages
from a slab pageblock will have some slab objects freed. Furthermore,
with the special casing, reclaim behaviour is unpredictable as kswapd
sometimes examines slab and sometimes does not in a manner that is tricky
to tune against and tricky to analyse.
This patch removes the special casing. The downside is that this is
not a universal performance win. Some benchmarks that depend on the
residency of data when rereading metadata may see a regression when
slab reclaim is restored to its original behaviour. Similarly, some
benchmarks that only read-once or write-once may perform better when page
reclaim is too aggressive. The primary upside is that slab shrinker is
less surprising (arguably more sane but that's a matter of opinion) and
behaves consistently regardless of the fragmentation state of the system.
A fsmark benchmark configuration was constructed similar to
what Dave reported and is codified by the mmtest configuration
config-io-fsmark-small-file-stream. It was evaluated on a 1-socket machine
to avoid dealing with NUMA-related issues and the timing of reclaim. The
storage was an SSD Samsung Evo and a fresh XFS filesystem was used for
the test data.
It is likely that the test configuration is not a proper match for Dave's
test as the results are different in terms of performance. However, my
configuration reports fsmark performance every 10% of memory worth of
files and I suspect Dave's configuration reported Files/sec when memory
was already full. THP was enabled for mine, disabled for Dave's and
probably a whole load of other methodology differences that rarely
get recorded properly.
fsmark
5.3.0-rc3 5.3.0-rc3
vanilla shrinker-v1r1
Min 1-files/sec 5181.70 ( 0.00%) 3204.20 ( -38.16%)
1st-qrtle 1-files/sec 14877.10 ( 0.00%) 6596.90 ( -55.66%)
2nd-qrtle 1-files/sec 6521.30 ( 0.00%) 5707.80 ( -12.47%)
3rd-qrtle 1-files/sec 5614.30 ( 0.00%) 5363.80 ( -4.46%)
Max-1 1-files/sec 18463.00 ( 0.00%) 18479.90 ( 0.09%)
Max-5 1-files/sec 18028.40 ( 0.00%) 17829.00 ( -1.11%)
Max-10 1-files/sec 17502.70 ( 0.00%) 17080.90 ( -2.41%)
Max-90 1-files/sec 5438.80 ( 0.00%) 5106.60 ( -6.11%)
Max-95 1-files/sec 5390.30 ( 0.00%) 5020.40 ( -6.86%)
Max-99 1-files/sec 5271.20 ( 0.00%) 3376.20 ( -35.95%)
Max 1-files/sec 18463.00 ( 0.00%) 18479.90 ( 0.09%)
Hmean 1-files/sec 7459.11 ( 0.00%) 6249.49 ( -16.22%)
Stddev 1-files/sec 4733.16 ( 0.00%) 4362.10 ( 7.84%)
CoeffVar 1-files/sec 51.66 ( 0.00%) 57.49 ( -11.29%)
BHmean-99 1-files/sec 7515.09 ( 0.00%) 6351.81 ( -15.48%)
BHmean-95 1-files/sec 7625.39 ( 0.00%) 6486.09 ( -14.94%)
BHmean-90 1-files/sec 7803.19 ( 0.00%) 6588.61 ( -15.57%)
BHmean-75 1-files/sec 8518.74 ( 0.00%) 6954.25 ( -18.37%)
BHmean-50 1-files/sec 10953.31 ( 0.00%) 8017.89 ( -26.80%)
BHmean-25 1-files/sec 16732.38 ( 0.00%) 11739.65 ( -29.84%)
5.3.0-rc3 5.3.0-rc3
vanillashrinker-v1r1
Duration User 77.29 89.09
Duration System 1097.13 1332.86
Duration Elapsed 2014.14 2596.39
This is showing that fsmark runs slower as a result of this patch but
there are other important observations that justify the patch.
1. With the vanilla kernel, the number of dirty pages in the system
is very low for much of the test. With this patch, dirty pages
is generally kept at 10% which matches vm.dirty_background_ratio
which is normal expected historical behaviour.
2. With the vanilla kernel, the ratio of Slab/Pagecache is close to
0.95 for much of the test i.e. Slab is being left alone and dominating
memory consumption. With the patch applied, the ratio varies between
0.35 and 0.45 with the bulk of the measured ratios roughly half way
between those values. This is a different balance to what Dave reported
but it was at least consistent.
3. Slabs are scanned throughout the entire test with the patch applied.
The vanille kernel has long periods with no scan activity and then
relatively massive spikes.
4. Overall vmstats are closer to normal expectations
5.3.0-rc3 5.3.0-rc3
vanilla shrinker-v1r1
Direct pages scanned 60308.00 5226.00
Kswapd pages scanned 18316110.00 12295574.00
Kswapd pages reclaimed 13121037.00 7280152.00
Direct pages reclaimed 11817.00 5226.00
Kswapd efficiency % 71.64 59.21
Kswapd velocity 9093.76 4735.64
Direct efficiency % 19.59 100.00
Direct velocity 29.94 2.01
Page reclaim immediate 247921.00 0.00
Slabs scanned 16602344.00 29369536.00
Direct inode steals 1574.00 800.00
Kswapd inode steals 130033.00 3968788.00
Kswapd skipped wait 0.00 0.00
o Vanilla kernel is hitting direct reclaim more frequently,
not very much in absolute terms but the fact the patch
reduces it is interesting
o "Page reclaim immediate" in the vanilla kernel indicates
dirty pages are being encountered at the tail of the LRU.
This is generally bad and means in this case that the LRU
is not long enough for dirty pages to be cleaned by the
background flush in time. This is eliminated by the
patch
o With the patch, kswapd is reclaiming 30 times more slab
pages than with the vanilla kernel. This is indicative
of the watermark boosting over-protecting slab
A more complete set of tests is being run but the bottom line is that
special casing kswapd to avoid slab behaviour is unpredictable and can
lead to abnormal results for normal workloads. This patch restores the
expected behaviour that slab and page cache is balanced consistently for
a workload with a steady allocation ratio of slab/pagecache pages.
Fixes: 1c30844d2dfe ("mm: reclaim small amounts of memory when an external fragmentation event occurs")
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 13 ++-----------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index dbdc46a84f63..6051a9007150 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -88,9 +88,6 @@ struct scan_control {
/* Can pages be swapped as part of reclaim? */
unsigned int may_swap:1;
- /* e.g. boosted watermark reclaim leaves slabs alone */
- unsigned int may_shrinkslab:1;
-
/*
* Cgroups are not reclaimed below their configured memory.low,
* unless we threaten to OOM. If any cgroups are skipped due to
@@ -2714,10 +2711,8 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
shrink_node_memcg(pgdat, memcg, sc, &lru_pages);
node_lru_pages += lru_pages;
- if (sc->may_shrinkslab) {
- shrink_slab(sc->gfp_mask, pgdat->node_id,
- memcg, sc->priority);
- }
+ shrink_slab(sc->gfp_mask, pgdat->node_id,
+ memcg, sc->priority);
/* Record the group's reclaim efficiency */
vmpressure(sc->gfp_mask, memcg, false,
@@ -3194,7 +3189,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist, int order,
.may_writepage = !laptop_mode,
.may_unmap = 1,
.may_swap = 1,
- .may_shrinkslab = 1,
};
/*
@@ -3238,7 +3232,6 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
.may_unmap = 1,
.reclaim_idx = MAX_NR_ZONES - 1,
.may_swap = !noswap,
- .may_shrinkslab = 1,
};
unsigned long lru_pages;
@@ -3286,7 +3279,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
.may_writepage = !laptop_mode,
.may_unmap = 1,
.may_swap = may_swap,
- .may_shrinkslab = 1,
};
set_task_reclaim_state(current, &sc.reclaim_state);
@@ -3598,7 +3590,6 @@ static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int classzone_idx)
*/
sc.may_writepage = !laptop_mode && !nr_boost_reclaim;
sc.may_swap = !nr_boost_reclaim;
- sc.may_shrinkslab = !nr_boost_reclaim;
/*
* Do some background aging of the anon list, to give
