linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, hughd@google.com, shakeelb@google.com,
	rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm thp: shrink deferred split THPs harder
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 10:26:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9cfcafe7-dd57-a4d7-236f-eda472c7bb7d@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191002084014.GH15624@dhcp22.suse.cz>



On 10/2/19 1:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 02-10-19 07:56:50, Yang Shi wrote:
>> The deferred split THPs may get accumulated with some workloads, they
>> would get shrunk when memory pressure is hit.  Now we use DEFAULT_SEEKS
>> to determine how many objects would get scanned then split if possible,
>> but actually they are not like other system cache objects, i.e. inode
>> cache which would incur extra I/O if over reclaimed, the unmapped pages
>> will not be accessed anymore, so we could shrink them more aggressively.
>>
>> We could shrink THPs more pro-actively even though memory pressure is not
>> hit, however, IMHO waiting for memory pressure is still a good
>> compromise and trade-off.  And, we do have simpler ways to shrink these
>> objects harder until we have to take other means do pro-actively drain.
>>
>> Change shrinker->seeks to 0 to shrink deferred split THPs harder.
> Do you have any numbers on the effect of this patch.

Yes, this patch would make THPs get split earlier.

For example, I have a test case which generates around 4G deferred split 
THPs (2K huge pages). With the default seeks, THPs would start to get 
split when priority reaches 6 since nr_to_scan depends on priority and 
shrinker->seeks. With this patch it would start to get split at the very 
beginning (priority 12).

IMHO, somehow this would achieve the similar effect with pro-actively 
draining.

>
> Btw. the whole thing is getting more and more complex and I still
> believe the approach is just wrong. We are tunning for something that
> doesn't really belong to the memory reclaim in the first place IMHO.

Maybe, but it is not clear to me that other approaches would be 
universally better than the current one unless we could split the page 
right away.

>   
>> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
>> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> index 3b78910..1d6b1f1 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -2955,7 +2955,7 @@ static unsigned long deferred_split_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
>>   static struct shrinker deferred_split_shrinker = {
>>   	.count_objects = deferred_split_count,
>>   	.scan_objects = deferred_split_scan,
>> -	.seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS,
>> +	.seeks = 0,
>>   	.flags = SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE | SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE |
>>   		 SHRINKER_NONSLAB,
>>   };
>> -- 
>> 1.8.3.1



      reply	other threads:[~2019-10-02 17:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-01 23:56 [PATCH] mm thp: shrink deferred split THPs harder Yang Shi
2019-10-02  8:40 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-02 17:26   ` Yang Shi [this message]

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=9cfcafe7-dd57-a4d7-236f-eda472c7bb7d@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeelb@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).