vfs-keep-inodes-with-page-cache-off-the-inode-shrinker-lru.patch

vfs-keep-inodes-with-page-cache-off-the-inode-shrinker-lru.patch

[Johannes Weiner]

Hi Andrew,

I promised to give this patch some more testing exposure while it sits
in -mm. We've been steadily rolling this version of the change to our
fleet over the last months and it's currently on 20% of FB servers. We
have not noticed crashes or performance regressions because of it.
(The other 80% is running a previous version of the patch.)

The comment in 'series' says "extra cycle" but that was 5.15 :-) Do
you think we can get it merged into 5.16?

Just to reiterate, without the patch, there is very broad production
breakage for FB beyond reduced cache effectiveness. Yes, we lose cache
pages prematurely. But a bigger problem is that we lose nonresident
info we store in the inodes. This defeats thrash detection, which in
turn defeats psi and central reclaim deciscion making. The downstream
effects of this are quite severe and widespread:

- memory prioity inversion between containers
- failure to offload cold memory to swap with proactive reclaim
- breakdown of container health monitoring and userspace OOM killing

I'm not exaggerating when I say we can't reliably operate our fleet
without this patch. We've had to carry variants of it for two years
now. It'd be great to get this fixed upstream.

Thanks,
Johannes

Re: vfs-keep-inodes-with-page-cache-off-the-inode-shrinker-lru.patch

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:57:23 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I promised to give this patch some more testing exposure while it sits
> in -mm. We've been steadily rolling this version of the change to our
> fleet over the last months and it's currently on 20% of FB servers. We
> have not noticed crashes or performance regressions because of it.
> (The other 80% is running a previous version of the patch.)
> 
> The comment in 'series' says "extra cycle" but that was 5.15 :-) Do
> you think we can get it merged into 5.16?
> 
> Just to reiterate, without the patch, there is very broad production
> breakage for FB beyond reduced cache effectiveness. Yes, we lose cache
> pages prematurely. But a bigger problem is that we lose nonresident
> info we store in the inodes. This defeats thrash detection, which in
> turn defeats psi and central reclaim deciscion making. The downstream
> effects of this are quite severe and widespread:
> 
> - memory prioity inversion between containers
> - failure to offload cold memory to swap with proactive reclaim
> - breakdown of container health monitoring and userspace OOM killing
> 
> I'm not exaggerating when I say we can't reliably operate our fleet
> without this patch. We've had to carry variants of it for two years
> now. It'd be great to get this fixed upstream.

Cool, thanks for the update.  I'll sent it Linuswards this week.