All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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: link
Be 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.