Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-49656-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:15:31 +0100
From: Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Efly Young <yangyifei03@kuaishou.com>
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, android-mm@google.com, 
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	mhocko@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 
	shakeelb@google.com, tjmercier@google.com, yuzhao@google.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: Use larger chunks for proactive reclaim
Message-ID: <vofidz4pzybyxoozjrmuqhycm2aji6inp6lkgd3fakyv5jqsjr@pleoj7ljsxhi>
References: <20240201153428.GA307226@cmpxchg.org>
 <20240202050247.45167-1-yangyifei03@kuaishou.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="i6547u4e3dsdsmiu"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240202050247.45167-1-yangyifei03@kuaishou.com>


--i6547u4e3dsdsmiu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 01:02:47PM +0800, Efly Young <yangyifei03@kuaishou.=
com> wrote:
> > Looking at the code, I'm not quite sure if this can be read this
> > literally. Efly might be able to elaborate, but we do a full loop of
> > all nodes and cgroups in the tree before checking nr_to_reclaimed, and
> > rely on priority level for granularity. So request size and complexity
> > of the cgroup tree play a role. I don't know where the exact factor
> > two would come from.
>=20
> I'm sorry that this conclusion may be arbitrary. It might just only suit
> for my case. In my case, I traced it loop twice every time before checking
> nr_reclaimed, and it reclaimed less than my request size(1G) every time.
> So I think the upper bound is 2 * request. But now it seems that this is
> related to cgroup tree I constucted and my system status and my request
> size(a relatively large chunk). So there are many influencing factors,
> a specific upper bound is not accurate.

Alright, thanks for the background.

> > IMO it's more accurate to phrase it like this:
> >=20
> > Reclaim tries to balance nr_to_reclaim fidelity with fairness across
> > nodes and cgroups over which the pages are spread. As such, the bigger
> > the request, the bigger the absolute overreclaim error. Historic
> > in-kernel users of reclaim have used fixed, small request batches to
> > approach an appropriate reclaim rate over time. When we reclaim a user
> > request of arbitrary size, use decaying batches to manage error while
> > maintaining reasonable throughput.

Hm, decay...
So shouldn't the formula be
  nr_pages =3D delta <=3D SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX ? delta : (delta + 3*SWAP_CLUSTE=
R_MAX) / 4
where
  delta =3D nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed
?
(So that convergence for smaller deltas is same like original- and other
reclaims while conservative factor is applied for effectivity of higher
user requests.)

Thanks,
Michal

--i6547u4e3dsdsmiu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQQpEWyjXuwGT2dDBqAGvrMr/1gcjgUCZbzArwAKCRAGvrMr/1gc
jgzbAQCS67JzDKT6wEDM8S72f5VdiKV8t/HeB+VB6/lh57jnsQEAgbHFRm3ydZLW
+QPinqIYWeFg0bd97cxxHhyNjoAmswY=
=64ep
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--i6547u4e3dsdsmiu--