From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, vmscan: avoid thrashing anon lru when free + file is low
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:14:05 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170419001405.GA13364@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1704181402510.112481@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Hi David,
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:32:56PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> > > The purpose of the code that commit 623762517e23 ("revert 'mm: vmscan: do
> > > not swap anon pages just because free+file is low'") reintroduces is to
> > > prefer swapping anonymous memory rather than trashing the file lru.
> > >
> > > If all anonymous memory is unevictable, however, this insistance on
> >
> > "unevictable" means hot workingset, not (mlocked and increased refcount
> > by some driver)?
> > I got confused.
> >
>
> For my purposes, it's mlocked, but I think this thrashing is possible
> anytime we fail the file lru heuristic and the evictable anon lrus are
> very small themselves. I'll update the changelog to make this explicit.
I understood now. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> > > Check that enough evictable anon memory is actually on this lruvec before
> > > insisting on SCAN_ANON. SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX is used as the threshold to
> > > determine if only scanning anon is beneficial.
> >
> > Why do you use SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX instead of (high wmark + free) like
> > file-backed pages?
> > As considering anonymous pages have more probability to become workingset
> > because they are are mapped, IMO, more {strong or equal} condition than
> > file-LRU would be better to prevent anon LRU thrashing.
> >
>
> If the suggestion is checking
> NR_ACTIVE_ANON + NR_INACTIVE_ANON > total_high_wmark pages, it would be a
> separate heurstic to address a problem that I'm not having :) My issue is
> specifically when NR_ACTIVE_FILE + NR_INACTIVE_FILE < total_high_wmark,
> NR_ACTIVE_ANON + NR_INACTIVE_ANON is very large, but all not on this
> lruvec's evictable lrus.
I understand it as "all not eligible LRU lists". Right?
I will write the comment below with that my assumption is right.
>
> This is the reason why I chose lruvec_lru_size() rather than per-node
> statistics. The argument could also be made for the file lrus in the
> get_scan_count() heuristic that forces SCAN_ANON, but I have not met such
> an issue (yet). I could follow-up with that change or incorporate it into
> a v2 of this patch if you'd prefer.
I don't think we need to fix that part because the logic is to keep
some amount of file-backed page workingset regardless of eligible
zones.
>
> In other words, I want get_scan_count() to not force SCAN_ANON and
> fallback to SCAN_FRACT, absent other heuristics, if the amount of
> evictable anon is below a certain threshold for this lruvec. I
> arbitrarily chose SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX to be conservative, but I could easily
> compare to total_high_wmark as well, although I would consider that more
> aggressive.
I realize your problem now. It's rather different heuristic so no need
to align file-lru. But SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX is too conservatie, too. IMHO.
How about this?
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 24efcc20af91..5d2f3fa41e92 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2174,8 +2174,17 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
}
if (unlikely(pgdatfile + pgdatfree <= total_high_wmark)) {
- scan_balance = SCAN_ANON;
- goto out;
+ /*
+ * force SCAN_ANON if inactive anonymous LRU lists of
+ * eligible zones are enough pages. Otherwise, thrashing
+ * can be happen on the small anonymous LRU list.
+ */
+ if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, false, NULL, sc, false) &&
+ lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, sc->reclaim_idx)
+ >> sc->priority) {
+ scan_balance = SCAN_ANON;
+ goto out;
+ }
}
}
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-19 0:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-18 0:06 [patch] mm, vmscan: avoid thrashing anon lru when free + file is low David Rientjes
2017-04-18 1:36 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-18 21:32 ` David Rientjes
2017-04-19 0:14 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2017-04-19 23:24 ` David Rientjes
2017-04-20 6:09 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-01 21:34 ` [patch v2] " David Rientjes
2017-05-02 8:02 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02 20:41 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-03 6:15 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 7:06 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 8:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 22:52 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-04 11:43 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-31 15:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-02 20:36 ` Andrew Morton
2017-06-04 22:27 ` David Rientjes
2017-04-19 7:04 ` [patch] " Michal Hocko
2017-04-18 7:11 ` Michal Hocko
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=20170419001405.GA13364@bbox \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=rientjes@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).