From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 31/35] fs: icache per-zone inode LRU
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:02:42 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101020100242.GA5853@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101020094302.GE12506@dastard>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 08:43:02PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:35:56PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > It's very fundamental. We allocate memory from, and have to reclaim
> > > memory from -- zones. Memory reclaim is driven based on how the VM
> > > wants to reclaim memory: nothing you can do to avoid some linkage
> > > between the two.
>
> The allocation API exposes per-node allocation, not zones. The zones
> are the internal implementation of the API, not what people use
> directly for allocation...
Of course it exposes zones (with GFP flags). In fact they were exposed
before the zone concept was extended to NUMA.
> > > > As an example: XFS inodes to be reclaimed are simply tagged in a
> > > > radix tree so the shrinker can reclaim inodes in optimal IO order
> > > > rather strict LRU order. It simply does not match a zone-based
> ....
> > > But anyway, that's kind of an "aside": inode caches are reclaimed
> > > in LRU, IO-suboptimal order today anyway. Per-zone LRU doesn't
> > > change that in the slightest.
>
> I suspect you didn't read what I wrote, so I'll repeat it. XFS has
> reclaimed inodes in optimal IO order for several releases and so
> per-zone LRU would change that drastically.
You were talking about XFS's own inode reclaim code? My patches
of course don't change that. I would like to see them usable by
XFS as well of course, but I'm not forcing anything to be
shoehorned in where it doesn't fit properly yet.
The Linux inode reclaimer is pretty well "random" from POV of
disk order, as you know.
I don't have the complete answer about how to write back required
inode information in IO optimal order, and at the same time make
reclaim optimal reclaiming choices.
It could be that a 2 stage reclaim process is enough (have the
Linux inode reclaim make the thing and make it eligible for IO
and real reclaiming, then have an inode writeout pass that does
IO optimal reclaiming from those).
That is really quite speculative and out of scope of this patch set.
But the point is that this patch set doesn't prohibit anything like
that happening, does not change XFS's reclaim currently.
> > > > Other subsystems need the same
> > > > large-machine scaling treatment, and there's no way we should be
> > > > tying them all into the struct zone. It needs further abstraction.
> > >
> > > An abstraction? Other than the zone? What do you suggest? Invent
> > > something that the VM has no concept of and try to use that?
>
> I think you answered that question yourself a moment ago:
>
> > > The structure is not frequent -- a couple per NUMA node.
>
> Sounds to me like a per-node LRU/shrinker arrangement is an
> abstraction that the VM could work with.
The zone really is the right place. If you do it per node, then
you can still have shortages in one node in a zone but not
another, causing the same excessive reclaim problem.
> Indeed, make it run only
> from the *per-node kswapd* instead of from direct reclaim, and we'd
> also solve the unbound reclaim parallelism problem at the same
> time...
That's also out of scope, but it is among things being
considered, as far as I know (along with capping number of
threads in reclaim etc). But doing zone LRUs doesn't change
this either -- kswapd pagecache reclaim also works per node,
by simply processing all the zones that belong to the node.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-20 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-19 3:42 [patch 00/35] my inode scaling series for review npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 01/35] bit_spinlock: add required includes npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 02/35] kernel: add bl_list npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 03/35] mm: implement per-zone shrinker npiggin
2010-10-19 4:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 5:33 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 5:40 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 04/35] vfs: convert inode and dentry caches to " npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 05/35] fs: icache lock s_inodes list npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 06/35] fs: icache lock inode hash npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 07/35] fs: icache lock i_state npiggin
2010-10-19 10:47 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-10-19 17:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 08/35] fs: icache lock i_count npiggin
2010-10-19 10:16 ` Boaz Harrosh
2010-10-20 2:14 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 09/35] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 10/35] fs: icache atomic inodes_stat npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 11/35] fs: icache lock inode state npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 12/35] fs: inode atomic last_ino, iunique lock npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 13/35] fs: icache remove inode_lock npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 14/35] fs: icache factor hash lock into functions npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 15/35] fs: icache per-bucket inode hash locks npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 16/35] fs: icache lazy inode lru npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 17/35] fs: icache RCU free inodes npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 18/35] fs: avoid inode RCU freeing for pseudo fs npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 19/35] fs: icache remove redundant i_sb_list umount locking npiggin
2010-10-20 12:46 ` Al Viro
2010-10-20 13:03 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-20 13:27 ` Al Viro
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 20/35] fs: icache rcu walk for i_sb_list npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 21/35] fs: icache per-cpu nr_inodes, non-atomic nr_unused counters npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 22/35] fs: icache per-cpu last_ino allocator npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 23/35] fs: icache use per-CPU lists and locks for sb inode lists npiggin
2010-10-19 15:33 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-10-20 2:37 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 24/35] fs: icache use RCU to avoid locking in hash lookups npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 25/35] fs: icache reduce some locking overheads npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 26/35] fs: icache alloc anonymous inode allocation npiggin
2010-10-19 15:50 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-10-20 2:38 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 16:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-20 3:07 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 27/35] fs: icache split IO and LRU lists npiggin
2010-10-19 16:12 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-10-20 2:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 28/35] fs: icache split writeback and lru locks npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 29/35] fs: icache per-bdi writeback list locking npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 30/35] fs: icache lazy LRU avoid LRU locking after IO operation npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 31/35] fs: icache per-zone inode LRU npiggin
2010-10-19 12:38 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-20 2:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-20 3:12 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-20 9:43 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-20 10:02 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-10-20 3:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-20 3:20 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-20 3:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-20 10:19 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-20 10:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 32/35] fs: icache minimise I_FREEING latency npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 33/35] fs: icache introduce inode_get/inode_get_ilock npiggin
2010-10-19 10:17 ` Boaz Harrosh
2010-10-20 2:17 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 34/35] fs: inode rename i_count to i_refs npiggin
2010-10-19 3:42 ` [patch 35/35] fs: icache document more lock orders npiggin
2010-10-19 16:22 ` [patch 00/35] my inode scaling series for review Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-20 3:05 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-20 13:14 ` Al Viro
2010-10-20 13:59 ` Nick Piggin
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=20101020100242.GA5853@amd \
--to=npiggin@kernel.dk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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
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).