All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v5 PATCH 07/11] mm: vmscan: add per memcg shrinker nr_deferred
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:20:09 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkpiDBMRRerr7iXtj40p=RVLTmWoWoOQbdkvG7Tsi4iirw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6b0638ba-2513-67f5-8ef1-9e60a7d9ded6@suse.cz>

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 5:00 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/21 12:33 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
> > Currently the number of deferred objects are per shrinker, but some slabs, for example,
> > vfs inode/dentry cache are per memcg, this would result in poor isolation among memcgs.
> >
> > The deferred objects typically are generated by __GFP_NOFS allocations, one memcg with
> > excessive __GFP_NOFS allocations may blow up deferred objects, then other innocent memcgs
> > may suffer from over shrink, excessive reclaim latency, etc.
> >
> > For example, two workloads run in memcgA and memcgB respectively, workload in B is vfs
> > heavy workload.  Workload in A generates excessive deferred objects, then B's vfs cache
> > might be hit heavily (drop half of caches) by B's limit reclaim or global reclaim.
> >
> > We observed this hit in our production environment which was running vfs heavy workload
> > shown as the below tracing log:
> >
> > <...>-409454 [016] .... 28286961.747146: mm_shrink_slab_start: super_cache_scan+0x0/0x1a0 ffff9a83046f3458:
> > nid: 1 objects to shrink 3641681686040 gfp_flags GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_ZERO pgs_scanned 1 lru_pgs 15721
> > cache items 246404277 delta 31345 total_scan 123202138
> > <...>-409454 [022] .... 28287105.928018: mm_shrink_slab_end: super_cache_scan+0x0/0x1a0 ffff9a83046f3458:
> > nid: 1 unused scan count 3641681686040 new scan count 3641798379189 total_scan 602
> > last shrinker return val 123186855
> >
> > The vfs cache and page cache ration was 10:1 on this machine, and half of caches were dropped.
> > This also resulted in significant amount of page caches were dropped due to inodes eviction.
> >
> > Make nr_deferred per memcg for memcg aware shrinkers would solve the unfairness and bring
> > better isolation.
> >
> > When memcg is not enabled (!CONFIG_MEMCG or memcg disabled), the shrinker's nr_deferred
> > would be used.  And non memcg aware shrinkers use shrinker's nr_deferred all the time.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/memcontrol.h |  7 +++---
> >  mm/vmscan.c                | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > index 62b888b88a5f..e0384367e07d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > @@ -93,12 +93,13 @@ struct lruvec_stat {
> >  };
> >
> >  /*
> > - * Bitmap of shrinker::id corresponding to memcg-aware shrinkers,
> > - * which have elements charged to this memcg.
> > + * Bitmap and deferred work of shrinker::id corresponding to memcg-aware
> > + * shrinkers, which have elements charged to this memcg.
> >   */
> >  struct shrinker_info {
> >       struct rcu_head rcu;
> > -     unsigned long map[];
> > +     unsigned long *map;
> > +     atomic_long_t *nr_deferred;
> >  };
> >
> >  /*
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 256896d157d4..20be0db291fe 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -187,16 +187,21 @@ static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> >  static int shrinker_nr_max;
> >
> > +#define NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(nr_max)       \
> > +     ((nr_max / BITS_PER_LONG + 1) * sizeof(unsigned long))
>
> Could have been part of patch 4 already. And yeah, using DIV_ROUND_UP(), as
> being hidden in a macro makes the "shorter statement" benefit disappear :)
>
> > +
> >  static void free_shrinker_info_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> >  {
> >       kvfree(container_of(head, struct shrinker_info, rcu));
> >  }
> >
> >  static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > -                                int size, int old_size)
> > +                                 int m_size, int d_size,
> > +                                 int old_m_size, int old_d_size)
> >  {
> >       struct shrinker_info *new, *old;
> >       int nid;
> > +     int size = m_size + d_size;
> >
> >       for_each_node(nid) {
> >               old = rcu_dereference_protected(
> > @@ -209,9 +214,15 @@ static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >               if (!new)
> >                       return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > -             /* Set all old bits, clear all new bits */
> > -             memset(new->map, (int)0xff, old_size);
> > -             memset((void *)new->map + old_size, 0, size - old_size);
> > +             new->map = (unsigned long *)(new + 1);
> > +             new->nr_deferred = (void *)new->map + m_size;
>
> This better be aligned to sizeof(atomic_long_t). Can we be sure about that?

Good point. No, if unsigned long is 32 bit on some 64 bit machines.

> Also it's all quite ugly and complex. Is it worth it? What about just leaving
> map as it is and allocating a nr_deferred array separately, i.e.:
>
>   struct shrinker_info {
>         struct rcu_head rcu;
>         atomic_long_t *nr_deferred; // allocated separately
>         unsigned long map[];
>   };

So, you mean we allocate shrinker info with map array in the first
step, then allocate nr_deferred? It is ok, but I'm afraid the error
handling may make the code not that clean as what you expect since we
have to call kvmalloc() twice. And we still need to do all the
initialization and copy work. So, eventually we just replace the
pointer assignment to error handling. I'm not quite sure if it is
worth it. The nested error handling might be more error prone.

>
> > +             /* map: set all old bits, clear all new bits */
> > +             memset(new->map, (int)0xff, old_m_size);
> > +             memset((void *)new->map + old_m_size, 0, m_size - old_m_size);
> > +             /* nr_deferred: copy old values, clear all new values */
> > +             memcpy(new->nr_deferred, old->nr_deferred, old_d_size);
> > +             memset((void *)new->nr_deferred + old_d_size, 0, d_size - old_d_size);
> >
> >               rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info, new);
> >               call_rcu(&old->rcu, free_shrinker_info_rcu);
> > @@ -226,9 +237,6 @@ void free_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >       struct shrinker_info *info;
> >       int nid;
> >
> > -     if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > -             return;
> > -
> >       for_each_node(nid) {
> >               pn = mem_cgroup_nodeinfo(memcg, nid);
> >               info = rcu_dereference_protected(pn->shrinker_info, true);
> > @@ -242,12 +250,13 @@ int alloc_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >  {
> >       struct shrinker_info *info;
> >       int nid, size, ret = 0;
> > -
> > -     if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > -             return 0;
> > +     int m_size, d_size = 0;
> >
> >       down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > -     size = (shrinker_nr_max / BITS_PER_LONG + 1) * sizeof(unsigned long);
> > +     m_size = NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(shrinker_nr_max);
> > +     d_size = shrinker_nr_max * sizeof(atomic_long_t);
> > +     size = m_size + d_size;
> > +
> >       for_each_node(nid) {
> >               info = kvzalloc_node(sizeof(*info) + size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
> >               if (!info) {
> > @@ -255,6 +264,8 @@ int alloc_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >                       ret = -ENOMEM;
> >                       break;
> >               }
> > +             info->map = (unsigned long *)(info + 1);
> > +             info->nr_deferred = (void *)info->map + m_size;
> >               rcu_assign_pointer(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_info, info);
> >       }
> >       up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
> > @@ -266,10 +277,16 @@ static int expand_shrinker_info(int new_id)
> >  {
> >       int size, old_size, ret = 0;
> >       int new_nr_max = new_id + 1;
> > +     int m_size, d_size = 0;
> > +     int old_m_size, old_d_size = 0;
> >       struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> >
> > -     size = (new_nr_max / BITS_PER_LONG + 1) * sizeof(unsigned long);
> > -     old_size = (shrinker_nr_max / BITS_PER_LONG + 1) * sizeof(unsigned long);
> > +     m_size = NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(new_nr_max);
> > +     d_size = new_nr_max * sizeof(atomic_long_t);
> > +     size = m_size + d_size;
> > +     old_m_size = NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(shrinker_nr_max);
> > +     old_d_size = shrinker_nr_max * sizeof(atomic_long_t);
> > +     old_size = old_m_size + old_d_size;
> >       if (size <= old_size)
> >               goto out;
> >
> > @@ -278,9 +295,8 @@ static int expand_shrinker_info(int new_id)
> >
> >       memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, NULL);
> >       do {
> > -             if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > -                     continue;
> > -             ret = expand_one_shrinker_info(memcg, size, old_size);
> > +             ret = expand_one_shrinker_info(memcg, m_size, d_size,
> > +                                            old_m_size, old_d_size);
> >               if (ret) {
> >                       mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg);
> >                       goto out;
> >
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-29 17:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-27 23:33 [v5 PATCH 0/11] Make shrinker's nr_deferred memcg aware Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 01/11] mm: vmscan: use nid from shrink_control for tracepoint Yang Shi
2021-01-28 16:02   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 02/11] mm: vmscan: consolidate shrinker_maps handling code Yang Shi
2021-01-28 16:10   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-28 21:16     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-28 21:16       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 14:33   ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-29 17:11     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 17:11       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 03/11] mm: vmscan: use shrinker_rwsem to protect shrinker_maps allocation Yang Shi
2021-01-28 16:19   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 04/11] mm: vmscan: remove memcg_shrinker_map_size Yang Shi
2021-01-28 16:53   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-28 21:22     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-28 21:22       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 11:22       ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-29 17:05         ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 17:05           ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 05/11] mm: memcontrol: rename shrinker_map to shrinker_info Yang Shi
2021-01-28 17:38   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-28 22:05     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-28 22:05       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 06/11] mm: vmscan: use a new flag to indicate shrinker is registered Yang Shi
2021-01-28 17:56   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-28 23:47     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-28 23:47       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 07/11] mm: vmscan: add per memcg shrinker nr_deferred Yang Shi
2021-01-29 13:00   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-29 14:46     ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-29 17:20     ` Yang Shi [this message]
2021-01-29 17:20       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 18:04       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 18:04         ` Yang Shi
2021-02-01 15:17         ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-02-01 17:09           ` Yang Shi
2021-02-01 17:09             ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 08/11] mm: vmscan: use per memcg nr_deferred of shrinker Yang Shi
2021-01-29 14:55   ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-29 14:59     ` Kirill Tkhai
2021-01-29 17:22       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 17:22         ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 15:13   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-29 17:33     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 17:33       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 09/11] mm: vmscan: don't need allocate shrinker->nr_deferred for memcg aware shrinkers Yang Shi
2021-01-29 15:40   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-29 17:34     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 17:34       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 10/11] mm: memcontrol: reparent nr_deferred when memcg offline Yang Shi
2021-01-29 15:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-29 17:38     ` Yang Shi
2021-01-29 17:38       ` Yang Shi
2021-01-27 23:33 ` [v5 PATCH 11/11] mm: vmscan: shrink deferred objects proportional to priority Yang Shi

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='CAHbLzkpiDBMRRerr7iXtj40p=RVLTmWoWoOQbdkvG7Tsi4iirw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=shy828301@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.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.