Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755708Ab1FJLEh (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:04:37 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44707 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755497Ab1FJLEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:04:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:04:12 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "bsingharora@gmail.com" , Ying Han Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH v3] memcg: fix behavior of per cpu charge cache draining. Message-ID: <20110610110412.GE4110@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <20110609093045.1f969d30.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110610081218.GC4832@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20110610173958.d9ab901c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110610090802.GB4110@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20110610185952.a07b968f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110610185952.a07b968f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4181 Lines: 114 On Fri 10-06-11 18:59:52, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:08:02 +0200 > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 10-06-11 17:39:58, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:12:19 +0200 > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu 09-06-11 09:30:45, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > > index bd9052a..3baddcb 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > [...] > > > > > static struct mem_cgroup_per_zone * > > > > > mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int nid, int zid) > > > > > @@ -1670,8 +1670,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem, > > > > > victim = mem_cgroup_select_victim(root_mem); > > > > > if (victim == root_mem) { > > > > > loop++; > > > > > - if (loop >= 1) > > > > > - drain_all_stock_async(); > > > > > if (loop >= 2) { > > > > > /* > > > > > * If we have not been able to reclaim > > > > > @@ -1723,6 +1721,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem, > > > > > return total; > > > > > } else if (mem_cgroup_margin(root_mem)) > > > > > return total; > > > > > + drain_all_stock_async(root_mem); > > > > > } > > > > > return total; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > I still think that we pointlessly reclaim even though we could have a > > > > lot of pages pre-charged in the cache (the more CPUs we have the more > > > > significant this might be). > > > > > > The more CPUs, the more scan cost for each per-cpu memory, which makes > > > cache-miss. > > > > > > I know placement of drain_all_stock_async() is not big problem on my host, > > > which has 2socket/8core cpus. But, assuming 1000+ cpu host, > > > > Hmm, it really depends what you want to optimize for. Reclaim path is > > already slow path and cache misses, while not good, are not the most > > significant issue, I guess. > > What I would see as a much bigger problem is that there might be a lot > > of memory pre-charged at those per-cpu caches. Falling into a reclaim > > costs us much more IMO and we can evict something that could be useful > > for no good reason. > > > > It's waste of time to talk this kind of things without the numbers. > > ok, I don't change the caller's logic. Discuss this when someone gets > number of LARGE smp box. Sounds reasonable. [..,] > please test/ack if ok. see comment bellow. Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko [...] > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index bd9052a..75713cb 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ enum charge_type { > static void mem_cgroup_get(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > static void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > static struct mem_cgroup *parent_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > -static void drain_all_stock_async(void); > +static void drain_all_stock_async(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > > static struct mem_cgroup_per_zone * > mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int nid, int zid) > @@ -1670,8 +1670,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem, > victim = mem_cgroup_select_victim(root_mem); > if (victim == root_mem) { > loop++; > - if (loop >= 1) > - drain_all_stock_async(); > + drain_all_stock_async(root_mem); > if (loop >= 2) { > /* > * If we have not been able to reclaim This still doesn't prevent from direct reclaim even though we have freed enough pages from pcp caches. Should I post it as a separate patch? > @@ -1934,9 +1933,12 @@ struct memcg_stock_pcp { > struct mem_cgroup *cached; /* this never be root cgroup */ > unsigned int nr_pages; > struct work_struct work; > + unsigned long flags; > +#define ASYNC_FLUSHING (0) -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/