Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/26] xfs: Improve metadata buffer reclaim accountability
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 14:14:50 +1100
Message-ID: <20191013031450.GT16973@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191012120558.GA3307@bfoster>

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 08:05:58AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:13:23AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 08:39:39AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:21:02PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > The buffer cache shrinker frees more than just the xfs_buf slab
> > > > objects - it also frees the pages attached to the buffers. Make sure
> > > > the memory reclaim code accounts for this memory being freed
> > > > correctly, similar to how the inode shrinker accounts for pages
> > > > freed from the page cache due to mapping invalidation.
> > > > 
> > > > We also need to make sure that the mm subsystem knows these are
> > > > reclaimable objects. We provide the memory reclaim subsystem with a
> > > > a shrinker to reclaim xfs_bufs, so we should really mark the slab
> > > > that way.
> > > > 
> > > > We also have a lot of xfs_bufs in a busy system, spread them around
> > > > like we do inodes.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Seems reasonable, but for inodes we also spread the ili zone. Should we
> > > not be consistent with bli's as well?
> > 
> > bli's are reclaimed when the buffer is cleaned. ili's live for the
> > live of the inode in cache. Hence bli's are short term allocations
> > (much shorter than xfs_bufs they attach to) and are reclaimed much
> > faster than inodes and their ilis. There's also a lot less blis than
> > ili's, so the spread of their footprint across memory nodes doesn't
> > matter that much. Local access for the memcpy during formatting is
> > probably more important than spreading the memory usage of them
> > these days, anyway.
> > 
> 
> Yes, the buffer/inode lifecycle difference is why why I presume bli
> zones are not ZONE_RECLAIM like ili zones.

No, that is not the case. IO completion cleaning the buffer is what
frees the bli. The ili can only be freed by reclaiming the inode, so
it's memory that can only be returned to the free pool by running a
shrinker. Hence ilis are ZONE_RECLAIM to account them as memory that
can be reclaimed through shrinker invocation, while BLIs are not
because memory reclaim can't directly cause them to be freed.

> This doesn't tell me anything about why buffers should be spread
> around as such and buffer log items not, though..

xfs_bufs are long lived, are global structures, and can accumulate
in the millions if the workload requires it. IOWs, we should spread
xfs_bufs for exactly the same reasons inodes are spread.

As for BLIs, they are short term structures - a single xfs_buf might
have thousands of different blis attached to it over it's life in
the cache because the BLI is freed when the buffer is cleaned.

We don't need to spread small short term structures around NUMA
memory nodes because they don't present a long term memory imbalance
vector. In general it is better to have them allocated local to the
process that is using them where the memory access latency is
lowest, knowing that they will be freed shortly and not contribute
to long term memory usage.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


  reply index

Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-09  3:20 [PATCH V2 00/26] mm, xfs: non-blocking inode reclaim Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:20 ` [PATCH 01/26] xfs: Lower CIL flush limit for large logs Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 12:39   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-30 17:08   ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 02/26] xfs: Throttle commits on delayed background CIL push Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 12:38   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 03/26] xfs: don't allow log IO to be throttled Dave Chinner
2019-10-11  9:35   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 12:39   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-30 17:14   ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 04/26] xfs: Improve metadata buffer reclaim accountability Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 12:39   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-11 12:57     ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 23:14       ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 23:13     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-12 12:05       ` Brian Foster
2019-10-13  3:14         ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2019-10-14 13:05           ` Brian Foster
2019-10-30 17:25   ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-30 21:43     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-31  3:06       ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-31 20:50         ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 21:05           ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-31 21:22             ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-03 21:26             ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 23:08               ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 05/26] xfs: correctly acount for reclaimable slabs Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 12:39   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-30 17:16   ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 06/26] xfs: synchronous AIL pushing Dave Chinner
2019-10-11  9:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 12:40   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-11 23:15     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 07/26] xfs: tail updates only need to occur when LSN changes Dave Chinner
2019-10-11  9:50   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 12:40   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 08/26] mm: directed shrinker work deferral Dave Chinner
2019-10-14  8:46   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-14 13:06     ` Brian Foster
2019-10-18  7:59     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 09/26] shrinkers: use defer_work for GFP_NOFS sensitive shrinkers Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 10/26] mm: factor shrinker work calculations Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 11/26] shrinker: defer work only to kswapd Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 12/26] shrinker: clean up variable types and tracepoints Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 13/26] mm: reclaim_state records pages reclaimed, not slabs Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 14/26] mm: back off direct reclaim on excessive shrinker deferral Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 16:21   ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-10-11 23:20     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 15/26] mm: kswapd backoff for shrinkers Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 16/26] xfs: synchronous AIL pushing Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 10:18   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 15:29     ` Brian Foster
2019-10-11 23:27       ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-12 12:08         ` Brian Foster
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 17/26] xfs: don't block kswapd in inode reclaim Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 15:29   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 18/26] xfs: reduce kswapd blocking on inode locking Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 10:29   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 19/26] xfs: kill background reclaim work Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 10:31   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 20/26] xfs: use AIL pushing for inode reclaim IO Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 17:38   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 21/26] xfs: remove mode from xfs_reclaim_inodes() Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 10:39   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-14 13:07   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 22/26] xfs: track reclaimable inodes using a LRU list Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 10:42   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-14 13:07   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 23/26] xfs: reclaim inodes from the LRU Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 10:56   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-30 23:25     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 24/26] xfs: remove unusued old inode reclaim code Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 25/26] xfs: rework unreferenced inode lookups Dave Chinner
2019-10-11 12:55   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 13:39     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-11 23:38     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-14 13:07   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-17  1:24     ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-17  7:57       ` Brian Foster
2019-10-18 20:29         ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-09  3:21 ` [PATCH 26/26] xfs: use xfs_ail_push_all_sync in xfs_reclaim_inodes Dave Chinner
2019-10-11  9:55   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-09  7:06 ` [PATCH V2 00/26] mm, xfs: non-blocking inode reclaim Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-11 19:03 ` Josef Bacik
2019-10-11 23:48   ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-12  0:19     ` Josef Bacik
2019-10-12  0:48       ` Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20191013031450.GT16973@dread.disaster.area \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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

Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/0 linux-mm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-mm linux-mm/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm \
		linux-mm@kvack.org
	public-inbox-index linux-mm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kvack.linux-mm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git