Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:31:41 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: slowly shrink slabs with a relatively small number
 of objects
Message-ID: <20180831213138.GA9159@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180831203450.2536-1-guro@fb.com>
 <3b05579f964cca1d44551913f1a9ee79d96f198e.camel@surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3b05579f964cca1d44551913f1a9ee79d96f198e.camel@surriel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2018 21:31:47.3683 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9d0f990b-c992-49c6-2e66-08d60f892872
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR15MB0164
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-31_09:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 05:15:39PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-08-31 at 13:34 -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index fa2c150ab7b9..c910cf6bf606 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -476,6 +476,10 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct
> > shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> >  	delta = freeable >> priority;
> >  	delta *= 4;
> >  	do_div(delta, shrinker->seeks);
> > +
> > +	if (delta == 0 && freeable > 0)
> > +		delta = min(freeable, batch_size);
> > +
> >  	total_scan += delta;
> >  	if (total_scan < 0) {
> >  		pr_err("shrink_slab: %pF negative objects to delete
> > nr=%ld\n",
> 
> I agree that we need to shrink slabs with fewer than
> 4096 objects, but do we want to put more pressure on
> a slab the moment it drops below 4096 than we applied
> when it had just over 4096 objects on it?
> 
> With this patch, a slab with 5000 objects on it will
> get 1 item scanned, while a slab with 4000 objects on
> it will see shrinker->batch or SHRINK_BATCH objects
> scanned every time.
> 
> I don't know if this would cause any issues, just
> something to ponder.

Hm, fair enough. So, basically we can always do

    delta = max(delta, min(freeable, batch_size));

Does it look better?


> 
> If nobody things this is a problem, you can give the
> patch my:
> 
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> 

Thanks!