From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"vdavydov.dev@gmail.com" <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages"
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 03:42:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190209034223.GA2591@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190208144944.082a771e84f02a77bad3e292@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:49:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:50:49 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > > > Has anyone done significant testing with Rik's maybe-fix?
> > >
> > > I will give it a spin with bonnie++ today. We'll see what comes out.
> >
> > OK, I did a bonnie++ run with Rik's patch (on top of 4.20 to rule out other
> > differences). This machine does not show so big differences in bonnie++
> > numbers but the difference is still clearly visible. The results are
> > (averages of 5 runs):
> >
> > Revert Base Rik
> > SeqCreate del 78.04 ( 0.00%) 98.18 ( -25.81%) 90.90 ( -16.48%)
> > RandCreate del 87.68 ( 0.00%) 95.01 ( -8.36%) 87.66 ( 0.03%)
> >
> > 'Revert' is 4.20 with "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages"
> > and "mm: slowly shrink slabs with a relatively small number of objects"
> > reverted. 'Base' is the kernel without any reverts. 'Rik' is a 4.20 with
> > Rik's patch applied.
> >
> > The numbers are time to do a batch of deletes so lower is better. You can see
> > that the patch did help somewhat but it was not enough to close the gap
> > when files are deleted in 'readdir' order.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> I guess we need a rethink on Roman's fixes. I'll queued the reverts.
Agree.
I still believe that we should cause the machine-wide memory pressure
to clean up any remains of dead cgroups, and Rik's patch is a step into
the right direction. But we need to make some experiments and probably
some code changes here to guarantee that we don't regress on performance.
>
>
> BTW, one thing I don't think has been discussed (or noticed) is the
> effect of "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages" on 32-bit
> highmem machines. Look why someone added that code in the first place:
>
> : commit f9a316fa9099053a299851762aedbf12881cff42
> : Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
> : Date: Thu Oct 31 04:09:37 2002 -0800
> :
> : [PATCH] strip pagecache from to-be-reaped inodes
> :
> : With large highmem machines and many small cached files it is possible
> : to encounter ZONE_NORMAL allocation failures. This can be demonstrated
> : with a large number of one-byte files on a 7G machine.
> :
> : All lowmem is filled with icache and all those inodes have a small
> : amount of highmem pagecache which makes them unfreeable.
> :
> : The patch strips the pagecache from inodes as they come off the tail of
> : the inode_unused list.
> :
> : I play tricks in there peeking at the head of the inode_unused list to
> : pick up the inode again after running iput(). The alternatives seemed
> : to involve more widespread changes.
> :
> : Or running invalidate_inode_pages() under inode_lock which would be a
> : bad thing from a scheduling latency and lock contention point of view.
>
> I guess I shold have added a comment. Doh.
>
It's a very useful link.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-09 3:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-30 4:17 [PATCH 0/2] [REGRESSION v4.19-20] mm: shrinkers are now way too aggressive Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 4:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] Revert "mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages" Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 12:21 ` Chris Mason
2019-01-31 1:34 ` Dave Chinner
2019-01-31 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-31 18:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-01-31 22:19 ` Dave Chinner
2019-02-04 21:47 ` Dave Chinner
2019-02-07 10:27 ` Jan Kara
2019-02-08 5:37 ` Andrew Morton
2019-02-08 9:55 ` Jan Kara
2019-02-08 12:50 ` Jan Kara
2019-02-08 22:49 ` Andrew Morton
2019-02-09 3:42 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2019-02-08 21:25 ` Dave Chinner
2019-02-11 15:34 ` Wolfgang Walter
2019-01-31 15:48 ` Chris Mason
2019-02-01 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 4:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] Revert "mm: slowly shrink slabs with a relatively small number of objects" Dave Chinner
2019-01-30 5:48 ` [PATCH 0/2] [REGRESSION v4.19-20] mm: shrinkers are now way too aggressive Roman Gushchin
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=20190209034223.GA2591@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com \
--to=guro@fb.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).