lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] mm: vmscan: detect file thrashing at the reclaim root
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:28:19PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Johannes.
>
> When I tested my patchset on v5.5, I found that my patchset doesn't
> work as intended. I tracked down the issue and this patch would be the
> reason of unintended work. I don't fully understand the patchset so I
> could be wrong. Please let me ask some questions.
>
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:53:33PM -0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> ...snip...
> > -static void snapshot_refaults(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg, pg_data_t *pgdat)
> > +static void snapshot_refaults(struct mem_cgroup *target_memcg, pg_data_t *pgdat)
> > {
> > - struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > -
> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root_memcg, NULL, NULL);
> > - do {
> > - unsigned long refaults;
> > - struct lruvec *lruvec;
> > + struct lruvec *target_lruvec;
> > + unsigned long refaults;
> >
> > - lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
> > - refaults = lruvec_page_state_local(lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
> > - lruvec->refaults = refaults;
> > - } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root_memcg, memcg, NULL)));
> > + target_lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(target_memcg, pgdat);
> > + refaults = lruvec_page_state(target_lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
> > + target_lruvec->refaults = refaults;
>
> Is it correct to just snapshot the refault for the target memcg? I
> think that we need to snapshot the refault for all the child memcgs
> since we have traversed all the child memcgs with the refault count
> that is aggregration of all the child memcgs. If next reclaim happens
> from the child memcg, workingset transition that is already considered
> could be considered again.

Good catch, you're right! We have to update all cgroups in the tree,
like we used to. However, we need to use lruvec_page_state() instead
of _local, because we do recursive comparisons in shrink_node()! So
it's not a clean revert of that hunk.

Does this patch here fix the problem you are seeing?

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index c82e9831003f..e7431518db13 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2993,12 +2993,17 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, struct scan_control *sc)

static void snapshot_refaults(struct mem_cgroup *target_memcg, pg_data_t *pgdat)
{
- struct lruvec *target_lruvec;
- unsigned long refaults;
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg;

- target_lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(target_memcg, pgdat);
- refaults = lruvec_page_state(target_lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
- target_lruvec->refaults = refaults;
+ memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, NULL, NULL);
+ do {
+ unsigned long refaults;
+ struct lruvec *lruvec;
+
+ lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
+ refaults = lruvec_page_state(lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
+ lruvec->refaults = refaults;
+ } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, memcg, NULL)));
}

/*
> > @@ -277,12 +305,12 @@ void workingset_refault(struct page *page, void *shadow)
> > * would be better if the root_mem_cgroup existed in all
> > * configurations instead.
> > */
> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_from_id(memcgid);
> > - if (!mem_cgroup_disabled() && !memcg)
> > + eviction_memcg = mem_cgroup_from_id(memcgid);
> > + if (!mem_cgroup_disabled() && !eviction_memcg)
> > goto out;
> > - lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
> > - refault = atomic_long_read(&lruvec->inactive_age);
> > - active_file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);
> > + eviction_lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(eviction_memcg, pgdat);
> > + refault = atomic_long_read(&eviction_lruvec->inactive_age);
> > + active_file = lruvec_page_state(eviction_lruvec, NR_ACTIVE_FILE);
>
> Do we need to use the aggregation LRU count of all the child memcgs?
> AFAIU, refault here is the aggregation counter of all the related
> memcgs. Without using the aggregation count for LRU, active_file could
> be so small than the refault distance and refault cannot happen
> correctly.

lruvec_page_state() *is* aggregated for all child memcgs (as opposed
to lruvec_page_state_local()), so that comparison looks correct to me.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-12 19:19    [W:0.112 / U:12.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site