From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, page-reclaim@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/14] mm: multigenerational lru: core
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:52:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wnu7y4hn.fsf@yhuang6-desk1.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YFA33n+zQb8oomjJ@google.com> (Yu Zhao's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2021 22:45:18 -0600")
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:08:51AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> writes:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > +/* Main function used by foreground, background and user-triggered aging. */
>> > +static bool walk_mm_list(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long next_seq,
>> > + struct scan_control *sc, int swappiness)
>> > +{
>> > + bool last;
>> > + struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
>> > + int nid = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_id;
>> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
>> > + struct lru_gen_mm_list *mm_list = get_mm_list(memcg);
>> > +
>> > + VM_BUG_ON(next_seq > READ_ONCE(lruvec->evictable.max_seq));
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * For each walk of the mm list of a memcg, we decrement the priority
>> > + * of its lruvec. For each walk of memcgs in kswapd, we increment the
>> > + * priorities of all lruvecs.
>> > + *
>> > + * So if this lruvec has a higher priority (smaller value), it means
>> > + * other concurrent reclaimers (global or memcg reclaim) have walked
>> > + * its mm list. Skip it for this priority to balance the pressure on
>> > + * all memcgs.
>> > + */
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>> > + if (!mem_cgroup_disabled() && !cgroup_reclaim(sc) &&
>> > + sc->priority > atomic_read(&lruvec->evictable.priority))
>> > + return false;
>> > +#endif
>> > +
>> > + do {
>> > + last = get_next_mm(lruvec, next_seq, swappiness, &mm);
>> > + if (mm)
>> > + walk_mm(lruvec, mm, swappiness);
>> > +
>> > + cond_resched();
>> > + } while (mm);
>>
>> It appears that we need to scan the whole address space of multiple
>> processes in this loop?
>>
>> If so, I have some concerns about the duration of the function. Do you
>> have some number of the distribution of the duration of the function?
>> And may be the number of mm_struct and the number of pages scanned.
>>
>> In comparison, in the traditional LRU algorithm, for each round, only a
>> small subset of the whole physical memory is scanned.
>
> Reasonable concerns, and insightful too. We are sensitive to direct
> reclaim latency, and we tuned another path carefully so that direct
> reclaims virtually don't hit this path :)
>
> Some numbers from the cover letter first:
> In addition, direct reclaim latency is reduced by 22% at 99th
> percentile and the number of refaults is reduced 7%. These metrics are
> important to phones and laptops as they are correlated to user
> experience.
>
> And "another path" is the background aging in kswapd:
> age_active_anon()
> age_lru_gens()
> try_walk_mm_list()
> /* try to spread pages out across spread+1 generations */
> if (old_and_young[0] >= old_and_young[1] * spread &&
> min_nr_gens(max_seq, min_seq, swappiness) > max(spread, MIN_NR_GENS))
> return;
>
> walk_mm_list(lruvec, max_seq, sc, swappiness);
>
> By default, spread = 2, which makes kswapd slight more aggressive
> than direct reclaim for our use cases. This can be entirely disabled
> by setting spread to 0, for worloads that don't care about direct
> reclaim latency, or larger values, they are more sensitive than
> ours.
OK, I see. That can avoid the long latency in direct reclaim path.
> It's worth noting that walk_mm_list() is multithreaded -- reclaiming
> threads can work on different mm_structs on the same list
> concurrently. We do occasionally see this function in direct reclaims,
> on over-overcommitted systems, i.e., kswapd CPU usage is 100%. Under
> the same condition, we saw the current page reclaim live locked and
> triggered hardware watchdog timeouts (our hardware watchdog is set to
> 2 hours) many times.
Just to confirm, in the current page reclaim, kswapd will keep running
until watchdog? This is avoided in your algorithm mainly via
multi-threading? Or via direct vs. reversing page table scanning?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-16 6:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-16 2:08 [PATCH v1 10/14] mm: multigenerational lru: core Huang, Ying
2021-03-16 4:45 ` Yu Zhao
2021-03-16 6:52 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2021-03-16 8:24 ` Yu Zhao
2021-03-16 8:53 ` Huang, Ying
2021-03-16 18:40 ` Yu Zhao
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-03-13 7:57 [PATCH v1 00/14] Multigenerational LRU Yu Zhao
2021-03-13 7:57 ` [PATCH v1 10/14] mm: multigenerational lru: core Yu Zhao
2021-03-15 2:02 ` Andi Kleen
2021-03-15 3:37 ` Yu Zhao
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=87wnu7y4hn.fsf@yhuang6-desk1.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=page-reclaim@google.com \
--cc=richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.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).