lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm, slab: Extend slab/shrink to shrink all the memcg caches
From
Date
On 7/23/19 4:30 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 7/22/19 8:46 AM, peter enderborg wrote:
>> On 7/2/19 8:37 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> Currently, a value of '1" is written to /sys/kernel/slab/<slab>/shrink
>>> file to shrink the slab by flushing all the per-cpu slabs and free
>>> slabs in partial lists. This applies only to the root caches, though.
>>>
>>> Extends this capability by shrinking all the child memcg caches and
>>> the root cache when a value of '2' is written to the shrink sysfs file.
>>>
>>> On a 4-socket 112-core 224-thread x86-64 system after a parallel kernel
>>> build, the the amount of memory occupied by slabs before shrinking
>>> slabs were:
>>>
>>> # grep task_struct /proc/slabinfo
>>> task_struct 7114 7296 7744 4 8 : tunables 0 0
>>> 0 : slabdata 1824 1824 0
>>> # grep "^S[lRU]" /proc/meminfo
>>> Slab: 1310444 kB
>>> SReclaimable: 377604 kB
>>> SUnreclaim: 932840 kB
>>>
>>> After shrinking slabs:
>>>
>>> # grep "^S[lRU]" /proc/meminfo
>>> Slab: 695652 kB
>>> SReclaimable: 322796 kB
>>> SUnreclaim: 372856 kB
>>> # grep task_struct /proc/slabinfo
>>> task_struct 2262 2572 7744 4 8 : tunables 0 0
>>> 0 : slabdata 643 643 0
>>
>> What is the time between this measurement points? Should not the shrinked memory show up as reclaimable?
>
> In this case, I echoed '2' to all the shrink sysfs files under
> /sys/kernel/slab. The purpose of shrinking caches is to reclaim as much
> unused memory slabs from all the caches, irrespective if they are
> reclaimable or not.

Well, SReclaimable counts pages allocated by kmem caches with
SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT flags, which should match those that have a shrinker
associated and can thus actually reclaim objects. That shrinking slabs affected
SReclaimable just a bit while reducing SUnreclaim by more than 50% looks
certainly odd.
For example the task_struct cache is not a reclaimable one, yet shows massive
reduction. Could be that the reclaimable objects were pinning non-reclaimable
ones, so the shrinking had secondary effects in non-reclaimable caches.

> We do not reclaim any used objects. That is why we
> see the numbers were reduced in both cases.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-07 18:34    [W:0.046 / U:10.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site