From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit() Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:30:15 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180222163015.GQ30681@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bf4a40fb-0a24-bfcb-124f-15e5e2f87b67@virtuozzo.com> On Thu 22-02-18 19:01:58, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > > > On 02/22/2018 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 22-02-18 18:38:11, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > > >>>> > >>>> with the patch: > >>>> best: 1.04 secs, 9.7G reclaimed > >>>> worst: 2.2 secs, 16G reclaimed. > >>>> > >>>> without: > >>>> best: 5.4 sec, 35G reclaimed > >>>> worst: 22.2 sec, 136G reclaimed > >>> > >>> Could you also compare how much memory do we reclaim with/without the > >>> patch? > >>> > >> > >> I did and I wrote the results. Please look again. > > > > I must have forgotten. Care to point me to the message-id? > > The results are quoted right above, literally above. Raise your eyes > up. message-id 0927bcab-7e2c-c6f9-d16a-315ac436ba98@virtuozzo.com OK, I see. We were talking about 2 different things I guess. > I write it here again: > > with the patch: > best: 9.7G reclaimed > worst: 16G reclaimed > > without: > best: 35G reclaimed > worst: 136G reclaimed > > Or you asking about something else? If so, I don't understand what you > want. Well, those numbers do not tell us much, right? You have 4 concurrent readers each an own 1G file in a loop. The longer you keep running that the more pages you are reclaiming of course. But you are not comparing the same amount of work. My main concern about the patch is that it might over-reclaim a lot if we have workload which also frees memory rahther than constantly add more easily reclaimable page cache. I realize such a test is not easy to make. I have already said that I will not block the patch but it should be at least explained why a larger batch makes a difference. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit() Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:30:15 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180222163015.GQ30681@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bf4a40fb-0a24-bfcb-124f-15e5e2f87b67@virtuozzo.com> On Thu 22-02-18 19:01:58, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > > > On 02/22/2018 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 22-02-18 18:38:11, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > > >>>> > >>>> with the patch: > >>>> best: 1.04 secs, 9.7G reclaimed > >>>> worst: 2.2 secs, 16G reclaimed. > >>>> > >>>> without: > >>>> best: 5.4 sec, 35G reclaimed > >>>> worst: 22.2 sec, 136G reclaimed > >>> > >>> Could you also compare how much memory do we reclaim with/without the > >>> patch? > >>> > >> > >> I did and I wrote the results. Please look again. > > > > I must have forgotten. Care to point me to the message-id? > > The results are quoted right above, literally above. Raise your eyes > up. message-id 0927bcab-7e2c-c6f9-d16a-315ac436ba98@virtuozzo.com OK, I see. We were talking about 2 different things I guess. > I write it here again: > > with the patch: > best: 9.7G reclaimed > worst: 16G reclaimed > > without: > best: 35G reclaimed > worst: 136G reclaimed > > Or you asking about something else? If so, I don't understand what you > want. Well, those numbers do not tell us much, right? You have 4 concurrent readers each an own 1G file in a loop. The longer you keep running that the more pages you are reclaiming of course. But you are not comparing the same amount of work. My main concern about the patch is that it might over-reclaim a lot if we have workload which also frees memory rahther than constantly add more easily reclaimable page cache. I realize such a test is not easy to make. I have already said that I will not block the patch but it should be at least explained why a larger batch makes a difference. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-22 16:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 125+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-12-20 10:24 [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 10:24 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 10:24 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 10:24 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 10:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko 2017-12-20 10:33 ` Michal Hocko 2017-12-20 11:32 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 11:32 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 11:34 ` Michal Hocko 2017-12-20 11:34 ` Michal Hocko 2017-12-20 18:15 ` Shakeel Butt 2017-12-20 18:15 ` Shakeel Butt 2017-12-21 10:00 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-21 10:00 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-21 10:00 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 13:21 ` [PATCH v2 " Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 13:21 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 13:21 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 13:21 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2017-12-20 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko 2017-12-20 13:53 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-09 16:58 ` [PATCH v3 " Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 16:58 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 16:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mm/memcg: Consolidate mem_cgroup_resize_[memsw]_limit() functions Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 16:58 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 17:10 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-09 17:10 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-09 17:10 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-09 17:26 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 17:26 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 23:26 ` Andrew Morton 2018-01-09 23:26 ` Andrew Morton 2018-01-10 12:43 ` [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-10 12:43 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-10 12:43 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-10 22:31 ` Andrew Morton 2018-01-10 22:31 ` Andrew Morton 2018-01-11 11:59 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 11:59 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-12 0:21 ` Andrew Morton 2018-01-12 0:21 ` Andrew Morton 2018-01-12 0:21 ` Andrew Morton 2018-01-12 9:08 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-12 9:08 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 10:42 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 10:42 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 10:42 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 12:21 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 12:21 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 12:21 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 12:46 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 12:46 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 15:23 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 15:23 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 15:23 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 16:29 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 16:29 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 16:29 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-11 21:59 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 21:59 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-11 21:59 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-12 12:24 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-12 12:24 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-12 22:57 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-12 22:57 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-12 22:57 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-15 12:29 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-15 12:29 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-15 17:04 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-15 17:04 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-15 17:04 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-15 12:30 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-15 12:30 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-15 12:46 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-15 12:46 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-15 12:53 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-15 12:53 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-15 12:58 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-15 12:58 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-09 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 17:08 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 17:08 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-09 17:22 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-09 17:22 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-19 13:25 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/memcontrol.c: " Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-19 13:25 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-19 13:25 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-19 13:25 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in mem_cgroup_resize_limit() Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-19 13:25 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-19 13:35 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 13:35 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 14:49 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-19 14:49 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-19 14:49 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-19 15:11 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 15:11 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 15:11 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 15:24 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-19 15:24 ` Shakeel Butt 2018-01-19 15:31 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 15:31 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 15:31 ` Michal Hocko 2018-02-21 20:17 ` Andrew Morton 2018-02-21 20:17 ` Andrew Morton 2018-02-22 13:50 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 13:50 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 14:09 ` Michal Hocko 2018-02-22 14:09 ` Michal Hocko 2018-02-22 15:13 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 15:13 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 15:33 ` Michal Hocko 2018-02-22 15:33 ` Michal Hocko 2018-02-22 15:38 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 15:38 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 15:44 ` Michal Hocko 2018-02-22 15:44 ` Michal Hocko 2018-02-22 16:01 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 16:01 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-02-22 16:30 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2018-02-22 16:30 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 13:32 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/memcontrol.c: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 13:32 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-19 13:32 ` Michal Hocko 2018-01-25 19:44 ` Andrey Ryabinin 2018-01-25 19:44 ` Andrey Ryabinin
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20180222163015.GQ30681@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \ --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=shakeelb@google.com \ --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.