From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: "ying.huang@intel.com" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/vmscan: never demote for memcg reclaim"
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 11:59:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d6d559e9a23dc2dc79cf453fd64488a4a45cc1b.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee1408cb15dbd2e979fe637e2ab91644f6190d0e.camel@intel.com>
On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 15:42 +0800, ying.huang@intel.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 15:09 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > This reverts commit 3a235693d3930e1276c8d9cc0ca5807ef292cf0a.
> >
> > Its premise was that cgroup reclaim cares about freeing memory inside
> > the cgroup, and demotion just moves them around within the cgroup
> > limit. Hence, pages from toptier nodes should be reclaimed directly.
> >
> > However, with NUMA balancing now doing tier promotions, demotion is
> > part of the page aging process. Global reclaim demotes the coldest
> > toptier pages to secondary memory, where their life continues and from
> > which they have a chance to get promoted back. Essentially, tiered
> > memory systems have an LRU order that spans multiple nodes.
> >
> > When cgroup reclaims pages coming off the toptier directly, there can
> > be colder pages on lower tier nodes that were demoted by global
> > reclaim. This is an aging inversion, not unlike if cgroups were to
> > reclaim directly from the active lists while there are inactive pages.
> >
> > Proactive reclaim is another factor. The goal of that it is to offload
> > colder pages from expensive RAM to cheaper storage. When lower tier
> > memory is available as an intermediate layer, we want offloading to
> > take advantage of it instead of bypassing to storage.
> >
> > Revert the patch so that cgroups respect the LRU order spanning the
> > memory hierarchy.
> >
> > Of note is a specific undercommit scenario, where all cgroup limits in
> > the system add up to <= available toptier memory. In that case,
> > shuffling pages out to lower tiers first to reclaim them from there is
> > inefficient. This is something could be optimized/short-circuited
> > later on (although care must be taken not to accidentally recreate the
> > aging inversion). Let's ensure correctness first.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
> > Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
> > Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> > Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
>
> This is also required by Tim's DRAM partition among cgroups in tiered
> sytstem.
Yes, while testing cgroup demotion, I also have to revert
the commit in question.
Acked-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 9 ++-------
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index c6918fff06e1..7a4090712177 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -528,13 +528,8 @@ static bool can_demote(int nid, struct scan_control *sc)
> > {
> > if (!numa_demotion_enabled)
> > return false;
> > - if (sc) {
> > - if (sc->no_demotion)
> > - return false;
> > - /* It is pointless to do demotion in memcg reclaim */
> > - if (cgroup_reclaim(sc))
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > + if (sc && sc->no_demotion)
> > + return false;
> > if (next_demotion_node(nid) == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > return false;
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-23 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-18 19:09 [PATCH] Revert "mm/vmscan: never demote for memcg reclaim" Johannes Weiner
2022-05-18 19:51 ` Dave Hansen
2022-05-18 20:42 ` Yang Shi
2022-05-18 21:50 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-19 5:11 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-05-19 7:42 ` ying.huang
2022-05-23 18:59 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2022-05-19 8:53 ` Muchun Song
2022-05-19 9:51 ` 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=3d6d559e9a23dc2dc79cf453fd64488a4a45cc1b.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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).