From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v8
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:52:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160708095203.GB11498@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160707232713.GM27480@dastard>
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:27:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> .....
> > This series is not without its hazards. There are at least three areas
> > that I'm concerned with even though I could not reproduce any problems in
> > that area.
> >
> > 1. Reclaim/compaction is going to be affected because the amount of reclaim is
> > no longer targetted at a specific zone. Compaction works on a per-zone basis
> > so there is no guarantee that reclaiming a few THP's worth page pages will
> > have a positive impact on compaction success rates.
> >
> > 2. The Slab/LRU reclaim ratio is affected because the frequency the shrinkers
> > are called is now different. This may or may not be a problem but if it
> > is, it'll be because shrinkers are not called enough and some balancing
> > is required.
>
> Given that XFS has a much more complex set of shrinkers and has a
> much more finely tuned balancing between LRU and shrinker reclaim,
> I'd be interested to see if you get the same results on XFS for the
> tests you ran on ext4. It might also be worth running some highly
> concurrent inode cache benchmarks (e.g. the 50-million inode, 16-way
> concurrent fsmark tests) to see what impact heavy slab cache
> pressure has on shrinker behaviour and system balance...
>
I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but
I'll queue the tests to run over the weekend. They are quite time consuming
to run unfortunately.
On the fsmark configuration, I configured the test to use 4K files
instead of 0-sized files that normally would be used to stress inode
creation/deletion. This is to have a mix of page cache and slab
allocations. Shout if this does not suit your expectations.
Finally, not all the machines I'm using can store 50 million inodes
of this size. The benchmark has been configured to use as many inodes
as it estimates will fit in the disk. In all cases, it'll exert memory
pressure. Unfortunately, the storage is simple so there is no guarantee
it'll find all problems but that's standard unfortunately.
Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-08 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-01 15:37 [PATCH 00/31] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v8 Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 01/31] mm, vmstat: add infrastructure for per-node vmstats Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 02/31] mm, vmscan: move lru_lock to the node Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 03/31] mm, vmscan: move LRU lists to node Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 04/31] mm, vmscan: begin reclaiming pages on a per-node basis Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 05/31] mm, vmscan: have kswapd only scan based on the highest requested zone Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 06/31] mm, vmscan: make kswapd reclaim in terms of nodes Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 07/31] mm, vmscan: remove balance gap Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether kswapd sleeps Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 09/31] mm, vmscan: by default have direct reclaim only shrink once per node Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 10/31] mm, vmscan: remove duplicate logic clearing node congestion and dirty state Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 11/31] mm: vmscan: do not reclaim from kswapd if there is any eligible zone Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 12/31] mm, vmscan: make shrink_node decisions more node-centric Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 13/31] mm, memcg: move memcg limit enforcement from zones to nodes Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 14/31] mm, workingset: make working set detection node-aware Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 15/31] mm, page_alloc: consider dirtyable memory in terms of nodes Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 16/31] mm: move page mapped accounting to the node Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 17/31] mm: rename NR_ANON_PAGES to NR_ANON_MAPPED Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 18/31] mm: move most file-based accounting to the node Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 19/31] mm: move vmscan writes and file write " Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 20/31] mm, vmscan: only wakeup kswapd once per node for the requested classzone Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 21/31] mm, page_alloc: Wake kswapd based on the highest eligible zone Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 22/31] mm: convert zone_reclaim to node_reclaim Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 23/31] mm, vmscan: Avoid passing in classzone_idx unnecessarily to shrink_node Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 24/31] mm, vmscan: Avoid passing in classzone_idx unnecessarily to compaction_ready Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 25/31] mm, vmscan: add classzone information to tracepoints Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 26/31] mm, page_alloc: remove fair zone allocation policy Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 27/31] mm: page_alloc: cache the last node whose dirty limit is reached Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 28/31] mm: vmstat: replace __count_zone_vm_events with a zone id equivalent Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 29/31] mm: vmstat: account per-zone stalls and pages skipped during reclaim Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 30/31] mm, vmstat: print node-based stats in zoneinfo file Mel Gorman
2016-07-01 15:37 ` [PATCH 31/31] mm, vmstat: Remove zone and node double accounting by approximating retries Mel Gorman
2016-07-07 23:27 ` [PATCH 00/31] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v8 Dave Chinner
2016-07-08 9:52 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2016-07-11 0:47 ` Dave Chinner
2016-07-11 9:02 ` Mel Gorman
2016-07-12 2:52 ` Dave Chinner
2016-07-01 20:01 Mel Gorman
2016-07-04 1:37 ` Minchan Kim
2016-07-04 4:34 ` Mel Gorman
2016-07-04 8:04 ` Minchan Kim
2016-07-04 9:55 ` Mel Gorman
2016-07-06 1:51 ` Minchan Kim
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=20160708095203.GB11498@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).