Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756324Ab1FJMYy (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:24:54 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:39832 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755932Ab1FJMYw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:24:52 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=p17Ie7rUksrNfjcbqFf+IqVBGAgR63ykykY6N9WaDOGqTeON4sCEZitQO8j9bx9xkO 2fY40gDCOB9oLMiXwZU/fAYSOWJU7gplDPNdozoBoZ9z2+Qa0XgCMZmUGFjPzBFd712t SUEhqUV9Q08EwXuLKHWEcTbBH4n2jC6+YjfKU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20110610110412.GE4110@tiehlicka.suse.cz> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:24:51 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH v3] memcg: fix behavior of per cpu charge cache draining. From: Hiroyuki Kamezawa To: Michal Hocko Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "bsingharora@gmail.com" , Ying Han Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4564 Lines: 108 2011/6/10 Michal Hocko : > 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? > yes. please in different thread. Maybe moving this out of loop will make sense. (And I have a cleanup patch for this loop. I'll do that when I post it later, anyway) Thanks, -Kame -- 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/