From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, <mgorman@suse.de>, <vbabka@suse.cz>, <riel@redhat.com>, <shakeelb@google.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <guohanjun@huawei.com>, <qiuxishi@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:59:35 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <80844f35-0864-81fb-e9a1-45def1e67f8b@huawei.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170315124117.GH32620@dhcp22.suse.cz> Hi Michal Thanks for reviewing. On 2017/3/15 20:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 15-03-17 19:36:48, Yisheng Xie wrote: >> By reviewing code, I find that when enter do_try_to_free_pages, the >> may_thrash is always clear, and it will retry shrink zones to tap >> cgroup's reserves memory by setting may_thrash when the former >> shrink_zones reclaim nothing. >> >> However, when memcg is disabled or on legacy hierarchy, or there do not >> have any memcg protected by low limit, it should not do this useless retry >> at all, for we do not have any cgroup's reserves memory to tap, and we >> have already done hard work but made no progress. >> >> To avoid this unneeded retrying, add a new field in scan_control named >> memcg_low_protection, set it if there is any memcg protected by low limit >> and only do the retry when memcg_low_protection is set while may_thrash >> is clear. > > You still haven't explained why a retry is bad thing. It certainly is > not about performance because not a single page being reclaimed means > that all the performance went to hell already. Please always make it > clear why the change is needed/desirable. So sorry for about that! This patch is just based on code reviewing, and sure is nothing to do with performance, therefore, I also cannot get any data about it. IMO, it may save some cycles for reclaim and this make me try to prepare this patch. Just as what you said that "the current additional round of reclaim is just lame for we are trying hard to control the retry logic from the page allocator". Thanks Yisheng Xie. > > But I agree that this makes the code easier to understand so I am OK > with this change. >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de, vbabka@suse.cz, riel@redhat.com, shakeelb@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, qiuxishi@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:59:35 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <80844f35-0864-81fb-e9a1-45def1e67f8b@huawei.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170315124117.GH32620@dhcp22.suse.cz> Hi Michal Thanks for reviewing. On 2017/3/15 20:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 15-03-17 19:36:48, Yisheng Xie wrote: >> By reviewing code, I find that when enter do_try_to_free_pages, the >> may_thrash is always clear, and it will retry shrink zones to tap >> cgroup's reserves memory by setting may_thrash when the former >> shrink_zones reclaim nothing. >> >> However, when memcg is disabled or on legacy hierarchy, or there do not >> have any memcg protected by low limit, it should not do this useless retry >> at all, for we do not have any cgroup's reserves memory to tap, and we >> have already done hard work but made no progress. >> >> To avoid this unneeded retrying, add a new field in scan_control named >> memcg_low_protection, set it if there is any memcg protected by low limit >> and only do the retry when memcg_low_protection is set while may_thrash >> is clear. > > You still haven't explained why a retry is bad thing. It certainly is > not about performance because not a single page being reclaimed means > that all the performance went to hell already. Please always make it > clear why the change is needed/desirable. So sorry for about that! This patch is just based on code reviewing, and sure is nothing to do with performance, therefore, I also cannot get any data about it. IMO, it may save some cycles for reclaim and this make me try to prepare this patch. Just as what you said that "the current additional round of reclaim is just lame for we are trying hard to control the retry logic from the page allocator". Thanks Yisheng Xie. > > But I agree that this makes the code easier to understand so I am OK > with this change. > -- 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:[~2017-03-16 10:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-03-15 11:36 [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages Yisheng Xie 2017-03-15 11:36 ` Yisheng Xie 2017-03-15 12:41 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-15 12:41 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-16 9:59 ` Yisheng Xie [this message] 2017-03-16 9:59 ` Yisheng Xie 2017-03-17 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner 2017-03-17 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner 2017-03-17 18:08 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-17 18:08 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-17 18:39 ` Johannes Weiner 2017-03-17 18:39 ` Johannes Weiner 2017-03-17 18:45 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-17 18:45 ` Michal Hocko 2017-03-17 20:00 ` Johannes Weiner 2017-03-17 20:00 ` Johannes Weiner
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=80844f35-0864-81fb-e9a1-45def1e67f8b@huawei.com \ --to=xieyisheng1@huawei.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mgorman@suse.de \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \ --cc=riel@redhat.com \ --cc=shakeelb@google.com \ --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \ /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.