Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46945-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240131162442.3487473-1-tjmercier@google.com> <20240131175059.GC1227330@cmpxchg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240131175059.GC1227330@cmpxchg.org>
From: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:01:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CABdmKX2WRQyBpDaV0CuL4E0OdR9FEff5NAZ0hFv8W8U7e82=UA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: Use larger chunks for proactive reclaim
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, 
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Efly Young <yangyifei03@kuaishou.com>, 
	android-mm@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 9:51=E2=80=AFAM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 04:24:41PM +0000, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> > Before 388536ac291 ("mm:vmscan: fix inaccurate reclaim during proactive
> > reclaim") we passed the number of pages for the reclaim request directl=
y
> > to try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages, which could lead to significant
> > overreclaim in order to achieve fairness. After 0388536ac291 the number
> > of pages was limited to a maxmimum of 32 (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) to reduce
> > the amount of overreclaim. However such a small chunk size caused a
> > regression in reclaim performance due to many more reclaim start/stop
> > cycles inside memory_reclaim.
> >
> > Instead of limiting reclaim chunk size to the SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX constant=
,
> > adjust the chunk size proportionally with number of pages left to
> > reclaim. This allows for higher reclaim efficiency with large chunk
> > sizes during the beginning of memory_reclaim, and reduces the amount of
> > potential overreclaim by using small chunk sizes as the total reclaim
> > amount is approached. Using 1/4 of the amount left to reclaim as the
> > chunk size gives a good compromise between reclaim performance and
> > overreclaim:
> >
> > root - full reclaim       pages/sec   time (sec)
> > pre-0388536ac291      :    68047        10.46
> > post-0388536ac291     :    13742        inf
> > (reclaim-reclaimed)/4 :    67352        10.51
> >
> > /uid_0 - 1G reclaim       pages/sec   time (sec)  overreclaim (MiB)
> > pre-0388536ac291      :    258822       1.12            107.8
> > post-0388536ac291     :    105174       2.49            3.5
> > (reclaim-reclaimed)/4 :    233396       1.12            -7.4
> >
> > /uid_0 - full reclaim     pages/sec   time (sec)
> > pre-0388536ac291      :    72334        7.09
> > post-0388536ac291     :    38105        14.45
> > (reclaim-reclaimed)/4 :    72914        6.96
> >
> > Fixes: 0388536ac291 ("mm:vmscan: fix inaccurate reclaim during proactiv=
e reclaim")
> > Signed-off-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@google.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 46d8d02114cf..d68fb89eadd2 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -6977,7 +6977,8 @@ static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_=
file *of, char *buf,
> >                       lru_add_drain_all();
> >
> >               reclaimed =3D try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> > -                                     min(nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed,=
 SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
> > +                                     max((nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed=
) / 4,
> > +                                         (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed=
) % 4),
>
> I don't see why the % 4 is needed. It only kicks in when the delta
> drops below 4, but try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() already has
>
>                 .nr_to_reclaim =3D max(nr_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
>
> so it looks like dead code.

That right, it's only there for when the integer division reaches
zero. I didn't want to assume anything about the implementation of
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages, but I can just remove it entirely if
you'd like.