From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<devel@openvz.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: vmscan: get rid of DEFAULT_SEEKS and document shrink_slab logic
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:51:21 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52F3D9A9.1070107@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140205125230.e1705369abcb634ddf141008@linux-foundation.org>
On 02/06/2014 12:52 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:16:49 +0400 Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com> wrote:
>
>>> So why did I originally make DEFAULT_SEEKS=2? Because I figured that to
>>> recreate (say) an inode would require a seek to the inode data then a
>>> seek back. Is it legitimate to include the
>>> seek-back-to-what-you-were-doing-before seek in the cost of an inode
>>> reclaim? I guess so...
>> Hmm, that explains this 2. Since we typically don't need to "seek back"
>> when recreating a cache page, as they are usually read in bunches by
>> readahead, the number of seeks to bring back a user page is 1, while the
>> number of seeks to recreate an average inode is 2, right?
> Sounds right to me.
>
>> Then to scan inodes and user pages so that they would generate
>> approximately the same number of seeks, we should calculate the number
>> of objects to scan as follows:
>>
>> nr_objects_to_scan = nr_pages_scanned / lru_pages *
>> nr_freeable_objects /
>> shrinker->seeks
>>
>> where shrinker->seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS = 2 for inodes.
> hm, I wonder if we should take the size of the object into account.
> Should we be maximizing (memory-reclaimed / seeks-to-reestablish-it).
I'm not sure I understand you quite right. You mean that if two slab
caches have obj sizes 1k and 2k and both of them need 2 seeks to
recreate an object, we should scan the 1k (or 2k?) slab cache more
aggressively than the 2k one? Hmm... I don't know. It depends on what we
want to achieve. But this won't balance the seeks, which is our goal for
now, IIUC.
>> But currently we
>> have four times that. I can explain why we should multiply this by 2 -
>> we do not count pages moving from active to inactive lrus in
>> nr_pages_scanned, and 2*nr_pages_scanned can be a good approximation for
>> that - but I have no idea why we multiply it by 4...
> I don't understand this code at all:
>
> total_scan = nr;
> delta = (4 * nr_pages_scanned) / shrinker->seeks;
> delta *= freeable;
> do_div(delta, lru_pages + 1);
> total_scan += delta;
>
> If it actually makes any sense, it sorely sorely needs documentation.
To find its roots I had to checkout the linux history tree:
commit c3f4656118a78c1c294e0b4d338ac946265a822b
Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Mon Dec 29 23:48:44 2003 -0800
[PATCH] shrink_slab acounts for seeks incorrectly
wli points out that shrink_slab inverts the sense of
shrinker->seeks: those
caches which require more seeks to reestablish an object are shrunk
harder.
That's wrong - they should be shrunk less.
So fix that up, but scaling the result so that the patch is actually
a no-op
at this time, because all caches use DEFAULT_SEEKS (2).
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index b8594827bbac..f2da3c9fb346 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static int shrink_slab(long scanned, unsigned int
gfp_mask)
list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
unsigned long long delta;
- delta = scanned * shrinker->seeks;
+ delta = 4 * (scanned / shrinker->seeks);
delta *= (*shrinker->shrinker)(0, gfp_mask);
do_div(delta, pages + 1);
shrinker->nr += delta;
So the idea seemed to be fixing a bug without introducing any functional
changes. Since then we have been living with this "4", which makes no
sense (?). Nobody complained though.
Thanks.
> David, you touched it last. Any hints?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-06 18:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-17 19:25 [PATCH 1/3] mm: vmscan: shrink_slab: rename max_pass -> freeable Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-17 19:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm: vmscan: get rid of DEFAULT_SEEKS and document shrink_slab logic Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-05 7:16 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-05 20:52 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-06 18:51 ` Vladimir Davydov [this message]
2014-01-17 19:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: vmscan: shrink_slab: do not skip caches with < batch_size objects Vladimir Davydov
2014-01-21 22:22 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm: vmscan: shrink_slab: rename max_pass -> freeable David Rientjes
2014-01-22 6:11 ` Vladimir Davydov
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=52F3D9A9.1070107@parallels.com \
--to=vdavydov@parallels.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=glommer@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=riel@redhat.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).