Re: [PATCH 04/26] xfs: Improve metadata buffer reclaim accountability

From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:05:51 -0700
Message-ID: <20191031210551.GK15221@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191031205049.GS4614@dread.disaster.area>

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:50:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 08:06:58PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 08:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:25:17AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong 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>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 6 +++++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > > > index e484f6bead53..45b470f55ad7 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > > > @@ -324,6 +324,9 @@ xfs_buf_free(
> > > > >  
> > > > >  			__free_page(page);
> > > > >  		}
> > > > > +		if (current->reclaim_state)
> > > > > +			current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab +=
> > > > > +							bp->b_page_count;
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, ok, I see how ZONE_RECLAIM and reclaimed_slab fit together.
> > > > 
> > > > >  	} else if (bp->b_flags & _XBF_KMEM)
> > > > >  		kmem_free(bp->b_addr);
> > > > >  	_xfs_buf_free_pages(bp);
> > > > > @@ -2064,7 +2067,8 @@ int __init
> > > > >  xfs_buf_init(void)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	xfs_buf_zone = kmem_zone_init_flags(sizeof(xfs_buf_t), "xfs_buf",
> > > > > -						KM_ZONE_HWALIGN, NULL);
> > > > > +			KM_ZONE_HWALIGN | KM_ZONE_SPREAD | KM_ZONE_RECLAIM,
> > > > 
> > > > I guess I'm fine with ZONE_SPREAD too, insofar as it only seems to apply
> > > > to a particular "use another node" memory policy when slab is in use.
> > > > Was that your intent?
> > > 
> > > It's more documentation than anything - that we shouldn't be piling
> > > these structures all on to one node because that can have severe
> > > issues with NUMA memory reclaim algorithms. i.e. the xfs-buf
> > > shrinker sets SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE, so memory pressure on a single
> > > node can reclaim all the xfs-bufs on that node without touching any
> > > other node.
> > > 
> > > That means, for example, if we instantiate all the AG header buffers
> > > on a single node (e.g. like we do at mount time) then memory
> > > pressure on that one node will generate IO stalls across the entire
> > > filesystem as other nodes doing work have to repopulate the buffer
> > > cache for any allocation for freeing of space/inodes..
> > > 
> > > IOWs, for large NUMA systems using cpusets this cache should be
> > > spread around all of memory, especially as it has NUMA aware
> > > reclaim. For everyone else, it's just documentation that improper
> > > cgroup or NUMA memory policy could cause you all sorts of problems
> > > with this cache.
> > > 
> > > It's worth noting that SLAB_MEM_SPREAD is used almost exclusively in
> > > filesystems for inode caches largely because, at the time (~2006),
> > > the only reclaimable cache that could grow to any size large enough
> > > to cause problems was the inode cache. It's been cargo-culted ever
> > > since, whether it is needed or not (e.g. ceph).
> > > 
> > > In the case of the xfs_bufs, I've been running workloads recently
> > > that cache several million xfs_bufs and only a handful of inodes
> > > rather than the other way around. If we spread inodes because
> > > caching millions on a single node can cause problems on large NUMA
> > > machines, then we also need to spread xfs_bufs...
> > 
> > Hmm, could we capture this as a comment somewhere?
> 
> Sure, but where? We're planning on getting rid of the KM_ZONE flags
> in the near future, and most of this is specific to the impacts on
> XFS. I could put it in xfs-super.c above where we initialise all the
> slabs, I guess. Probably a separate patch, though....

Sounds like a reasonable place (to me) to record the fact that we want
inodes and metadata buffers not to end up concentrating on a single node.

At least until we start having NUMA systems with a separate "IO node" in
which to confine all the IO threads and whatnot <shudder>. :P

--D

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com