From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>, Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Reduce impact to overall system of SLUB using high-order allocations V2 Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:52:29 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20110513155229.GJ3569@suse.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1305299984.2611.37.camel@mulgrave.site> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:19:44AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 15:03 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Changelog since V1 > > o kswapd should sleep if need_resched > > o Remove __GFP_REPEAT from GFP flags when speculatively using high > > orders so direct/compaction exits earlier > > o Remove __GFP_NORETRY for correctness > > o Correct logic in sleeping_prematurely > > o Leave SLUB using the default slub_max_order > > > > There are a few reports of people experiencing hangs when copying > > large amounts of data with kswapd using a large amount of CPU which > > appear to be due to recent reclaim changes. > > > > SLUB using high orders is the trigger but not the root cause as SLUB > > has been using high orders for a while. The following four patches > > aim to fix the problems in reclaim while reducing the cost for SLUB > > using those high orders. > > > > Patch 1 corrects logic introduced by commit [1741c877: mm: > > kswapd: keep kswapd awake for high-order allocations until > > a percentage of the node is balanced] to allow kswapd to > > go to sleep when balanced for high orders. > > > > Patch 2 prevents kswapd waking up in response to SLUBs speculative > > use of high orders. > > > > Patch 3 further reduces the cost by prevent SLUB entering direct > > compaction or reclaim paths on the grounds that falling > > back to order-0 should be cheaper. > > > > Patch 4 notes that even when kswapd is failing to keep up with > > allocation requests, it should still go to sleep when its > > quota has expired to prevent it spinning. > > This all works fine for me ... three untar runs and no kswapd hangs or > pegging the CPU at 99% ... in fact, kswapd rarely gets over 20% > Good stuff, thanks. > This isn't as good as the kswapd sleeping_prematurely() throttling > patch. For total CPU time on a three 90GB untar run, it's about 64s of > CPU time with your patch rather than 6s, but that's vastly better than > the 15 minutes of CPU time kswapd was taking even under PREEMPT. > The throttling patch is unfortunately a bit hand-wavy based on number of times it's entered and time passed. It'll be even harder to debug problems related to this in the future particularly as it's using global information (a static) for kswapd (per-node which could be worse in the future depending on what memcg do). However, as you are testing against stable, can you also apply this patch? [2876592f: mm: vmscan: stop reclaim/compaction earlier due to insufficient progress if !__GFP_REPEAT]. It makes a difference as to when reclaimers give up on high-orders and go to sleep. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>, Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Reduce impact to overall system of SLUB using high-order allocations V2 Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:52:29 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20110513155229.GJ3569@suse.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1305299984.2611.37.camel@mulgrave.site> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:19:44AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 15:03 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Changelog since V1 > > o kswapd should sleep if need_resched > > o Remove __GFP_REPEAT from GFP flags when speculatively using high > > orders so direct/compaction exits earlier > > o Remove __GFP_NORETRY for correctness > > o Correct logic in sleeping_prematurely > > o Leave SLUB using the default slub_max_order > > > > There are a few reports of people experiencing hangs when copying > > large amounts of data with kswapd using a large amount of CPU which > > appear to be due to recent reclaim changes. > > > > SLUB using high orders is the trigger but not the root cause as SLUB > > has been using high orders for a while. The following four patches > > aim to fix the problems in reclaim while reducing the cost for SLUB > > using those high orders. > > > > Patch 1 corrects logic introduced by commit [1741c877: mm: > > kswapd: keep kswapd awake for high-order allocations until > > a percentage of the node is balanced] to allow kswapd to > > go to sleep when balanced for high orders. > > > > Patch 2 prevents kswapd waking up in response to SLUBs speculative > > use of high orders. > > > > Patch 3 further reduces the cost by prevent SLUB entering direct > > compaction or reclaim paths on the grounds that falling > > back to order-0 should be cheaper. > > > > Patch 4 notes that even when kswapd is failing to keep up with > > allocation requests, it should still go to sleep when its > > quota has expired to prevent it spinning. > > This all works fine for me ... three untar runs and no kswapd hangs or > pegging the CPU at 99% ... in fact, kswapd rarely gets over 20% > Good stuff, thanks. > This isn't as good as the kswapd sleeping_prematurely() throttling > patch. For total CPU time on a three 90GB untar run, it's about 64s of > CPU time with your patch rather than 6s, but that's vastly better than > the 15 minutes of CPU time kswapd was taking even under PREEMPT. > The throttling patch is unfortunately a bit hand-wavy based on number of times it's entered and time passed. It'll be even harder to debug problems related to this in the future particularly as it's using global information (a static) for kswapd (per-node which could be worse in the future depending on what memcg do). However, as you are testing against stable, can you also apply this patch? [2876592f: mm: vmscan: stop reclaim/compaction earlier due to insufficient progress if !__GFP_REPEAT]. It makes a difference as to when reclaimers give up on high-orders and go to sleep. -- Mel Gorman 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-13 15:52 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 119+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2011-05-13 14:03 [PATCH 0/4] Reduce impact to overall system of SLUB using high-order allocations V2 Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 14:03 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 14:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm: vmscan: Correct use of pgdat_balanced in sleeping_prematurely Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 14:03 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 14:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2011-05-13 14:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2011-05-14 16:30 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-14 16:30 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-16 14:30 ` Rik van Riel 2011-05-16 14:30 ` Rik van Riel 2011-05-13 14:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm: slub: Do not wake kswapd for SLUBs speculative high-order allocations Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 14:03 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 21:10 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-16 21:10 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-18 6:09 ` Pekka Enberg 2011-05-18 6:09 ` Pekka Enberg 2011-05-18 17:21 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-18 17:21 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-13 14:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm: slub: Do not take expensive steps " Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 14:03 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 21:16 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-16 21:16 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-17 8:42 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 8:42 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 13:51 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-17 13:51 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 17:52 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-17 17:52 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-17 19:35 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-17 19:35 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-17 19:31 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-17 19:31 ` David Rientjes 2011-05-13 14:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: vmscan: If kswapd has been running too long, allow it to sleep Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 14:03 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-15 10:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-15 10:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-16 4:21 ` James Bottomley 2011-05-16 4:21 ` James Bottomley 2011-05-16 5:04 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-16 5:04 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-16 8:45 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 8:45 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 8:45 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 8:58 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-16 8:58 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-16 8:58 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-16 10:27 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 10:27 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 10:27 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 23:50 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-16 23:50 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-17 0:48 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-17 0:48 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-17 0:48 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-17 10:38 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 10:38 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 10:38 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 13:50 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-17 13:50 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-17 16:15 ` [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Correctly check if reclaimer should schedule during shrink_slab Mel Gorman 2011-05-17 16:15 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-18 0:45 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 0:45 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-19 0:03 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-19 0:03 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-19 0:03 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-19 0:09 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-19 0:09 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-19 0:09 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-19 11:36 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-19 11:36 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-20 0:06 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-20 0:06 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-20 0:06 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 4:19 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: vmscan: If kswapd has been running too long, allow it to sleep Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 4:19 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 7:39 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-18 7:39 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-18 4:09 ` James Bottomley 2011-05-18 4:09 ` James Bottomley 2011-05-18 1:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 1:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 5:44 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 5:44 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 5:44 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 6:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 6:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 9:58 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-18 9:58 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-18 9:58 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-18 22:55 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 22:55 ` Minchan Kim 2011-05-18 23:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 23:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 0:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 0:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 2011-05-18 9:57 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-18 9:57 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 8:45 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 8:45 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 14:30 ` Rik van Riel 2011-05-16 14:30 ` Rik van Riel 2011-05-13 15:19 ` [PATCH 0/4] Reduce impact to overall system of SLUB using high-order allocations V2 James Bottomley 2011-05-13 15:19 ` James Bottomley 2011-05-13 15:19 ` James Bottomley 2011-05-13 15:52 ` Mel Gorman [this message] 2011-05-13 15:52 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 15:21 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-13 15:21 ` Christoph Lameter 2011-05-13 15:43 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-13 15:43 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-14 8:34 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-14 8:34 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-16 8:37 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 8:37 ` Mel Gorman 2011-05-16 11:24 ` Colin Ian King 2011-05-16 11:24 ` Colin Ian King
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=20110513155229.GJ3569@suse.de \ --to=mgorman@suse.de \ --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \ --cc=cl@linux.com \ --cc=colin.king@canonical.com \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=penberg@kernel.org \ --cc=raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com \ --cc=riel@redhat.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.