From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jia He <hejianet@gmail.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm: don't avoid high-priority reclaim on memcg limit reclaim
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:13:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170301191359.GB24905@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170301173628.GA12664@cmpxchg.org>
On Wed 01-03-17 12:36:28, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:40:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 28-02-17 16:40:04, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > 246e87a93934 ("memcg: fix get_scan_count() for small targets") sought
> > > to avoid high reclaim priorities for memcg by forcing it to scan a
> > > minimum amount of pages when lru_pages >> priority yielded nothing.
> > > This was done at a time when reclaim decisions like dirty throttling
> > > were tied to the priority level.
> > >
> > > Nowadays, the only meaningful thing still tied to priority dropping
> > > below DEF_PRIORITY - 2 is gating whether laptop_mode=1 is generally
> > > allowed to write. But that is from an era where direct reclaim was
> > > still allowed to call ->writepage, and kswapd nowadays avoids writes
> > > until it's scanned every clean page in the system. Potential changes
> > > to how quick sc->may_writepage could trigger are of little concern.
> > >
> > > Remove the force_scan stuff, as well as the ugly multi-pass target
> > > calculation that it necessitated.
> >
> > I _really_ like this, I hated the multi-pass part. One thig that I am
> > worried about and changelog doesn't mention it is what we are going to
> > do about small (<16MB) memcgs. On one hand they were already ignored in
> > the global reclaim so this is nothing really new but maybe we want to
> > preserve the behavior for the memcg reclaim at least which would reduce
> > side effect of this patch which is a great cleanup otherwise. Or at
> > least be explicit about this in the changelog.
>
> <16MB groups are a legitimate concern during global reclaim, but we
> have done it this way for a long time and it never seemed to have
> mattered in practice.
Yeah, this is not really easy to spot because there are usually other
memcgs which can be reclaimed.
> And for limit reclaim, this should be much less of a concern. It just
> means we no longer scan these groups at DEF_PRIORITY and will have to
> increase the scan window. I don't see a problem with that. And that
> consequence of higher priorities is right in the patch subject.
well the memory pressure spills over to others in the same hierarchy.
But I agree this shouldn't a disaster.
> > Btw. why cannot we simply force scan at least SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
> > unconditionally?
> >
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the cgroup's already been deleted, make sure to
> > > + * scrape out the remaining cache.
> > Also make sure that small memcgs will not get
> > unnoticed during the memcg reclaim
> >
> > > + */
> > > + if (!scan && !mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
> >
> > if (!scan && (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg) || !global_reclaim(sc)))
>
> With this I'd be worried about regressing the setups pointed out in
> 6f04f48dc9c0 ("mm: only force scan in reclaim when none of the LRUs
> are big enough.").
>
> Granted, that patch is a little dubious. IMO, we should be steering
> the LRU balance through references and, in that case in particular,
> with swappiness. Using the default 60 for zswap is too low.
>
> Plus, I would expect the refault detection code that was introduced
> around the same time as this patch to counter-act the hot file
> thrashing that is mentioned in that patch's changelog.
>
> Nevertheless, it seems a bit gratuitous to go against that change so
> directly when global reclaim hasn't historically been a problem with
> groups <16MB. Limit reclaim should be fine too.
As I've already mentioned, I really love this patch I just think this is
a subtle side effect. The above reasoning should be good enough I
believe.
Anyway I forgot to add, I will leave the decision whether to have this
in a separate patch or just added to the changelog to you.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
--
Michal Hocko
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-01 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-28 21:39 [PATCH 0/9] mm: kswapd spinning on unreclaimable nodes - fixes and cleanups Johannes Weiner
2017-02-28 21:39 ` [PATCH 1/9] mm: fix 100% CPU kswapd busyloop on unreclaimable nodes Johannes Weiner
2017-03-02 3:23 ` Hillf Danton
2017-03-02 23:30 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-03-03 1:26 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-03 7:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 1:37 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-06 16:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-07 0:59 ` Hillf Danton
2017-03-07 7:28 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-07 10:17 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 16:56 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-09 14:20 ` Mel Gorman
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 2/9] mm: fix check for reclaimable pages in PF_MEMALLOC reclaim throttling Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 15:02 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 3:25 ` Hillf Danton
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 3/9] mm: remove seemingly spurious reclaimability check from laptop_mode gating Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 15:06 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-01 15:17 ` Mel Gorman
2017-03-02 3:27 ` Hillf Danton
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 4/9] mm: remove unnecessary reclaimability check from NUMA balancing target Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 15:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 3:28 ` Hillf Danton
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 5/9] mm: don't avoid high-priority reclaim on unreclaimable nodes Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 15:21 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 3:31 ` Hillf Danton
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 6/9] mm: don't avoid high-priority reclaim on memcg limit reclaim Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 15:40 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-01 17:36 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 19:13 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-03-02 3:32 ` Hillf Danton
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 7/9] mm: delete NR_PAGES_SCANNED and pgdat_reclaimable() Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 15:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 3:34 ` Hillf Danton
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 8/9] Revert "mm, vmscan: account for skipped pages as a partial scan" Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 15:51 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 3:36 ` Hillf Danton
2017-02-28 21:40 ` [PATCH 9/9] mm: remove unnecessary back-off function when retrying page reclaim Johannes Weiner
2017-03-01 14:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 3:37 ` Hillf Danton
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=20170301191359.GB24905@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hejianet@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
/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).