From patchwork Tue Jan 29 18:25:16 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Chris Down X-Patchwork-Id: 10786811 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393DA91E for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220212D06A for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id 161402D0AE; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:25:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3951A2D06A for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 40D448E0003; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:25:19 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3BC318E0001; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:25:19 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 285238E0003; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:25:19 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-yw1-f70.google.com (mail-yw1-f70.google.com [209.85.161.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2BB8E0001 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:25:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yw1-f70.google.com with SMTP id t205so11870678ywa.10 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:25:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:dkim-signature:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:mime-version:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=UEWYKVrLyoeo+EHNXuBgk1+ZBNjf1UAZ3jeHlECOcAQ=; b=SD5wz0evBqL5VWxE+kj4oneKsrXZlSUdKuCC3DLZl+Xyzj9rSduSDZ6KsUy1jaUc6w ujRfdBqHLUdMjHg/EqhdN1iETIK2v5G71QDsC8n8WU7t9uT8YlzxF8Jm6ROdrQBsUgke 99luSINE906vjr8qXFrfHq/0uSx7ZpDtblS4eZBT/fjBNyBMUHgG7PGfVxoiPoY/wq5O H7jwMa3cMZuai/DkONnrVW/4rCJRIwZe1kMPuAiDoeIf6f9y15q0LUxWCdqUAwe/YxH2 +SSOkpOVqwvJ2WnuJK0sPCJE1v6NZ6hgCXawU3pxSOZ7DGs7u/nu1VY5krH1Cd00jwml l1ig== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcZGfLG5xbbTCizQSkdKRedgq6Ce/jDBj9HnhE1TL/XSsKF/GSI EgNFhE5d3v8rCd+IF7aSjXMh8dG/T3LegL4yrNCgYnCb3d41h7izNSzKutr38OQNUhvfnDnt8+B OhpJm2vw/748nyePYsx7bDGx1vg33F+mT25XsAjCWTxe1G/1KZo5q4NXIFz6ogr/9z1gn5mG7As sdGKpoNnbFOJydpfCn8gomkMII+f+hsMhbIG1dWgqVdByySGVYbzLfKh7ts7kEZ8LFCHcCEB4V0 JhEIxErdx4CDclVxWyCtCS6rhlTh0i/gPPNw+57bXWl2E+eT6BPRlt1FhloJJsTUtxoDrSU/9Jw VvzQv0kxF8z8ssyLiJ3qYFvrb3dBCzVSwuwR+3aZHixaLR2cfif/XVpeFOUr1rMzF1hzcmDgjwR J X-Received: by 2002:a81:6c90:: with SMTP id h138mr25648693ywc.379.1548786318639; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:25:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a81:6c90:: with SMTP id h138mr25648655ywc.379.1548786317883; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:25:17 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1548786317; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=hryAdX0zOP3np1sfKorOX7KJHHUzEHIbJTZyi7iXqDBj0lr/agUMBts20vB0Frx8s/ dlvnpivxf/HYZqgV/7yM8k19+RWabiNm25RHYmZOBpJdQV4qpURNibOdVdkjFeCfqth6 uEnAh0KOMhEkiOXo6dqevlO3q15uYsSGtsh2okTaTattttNTpTY/yqWYX68mlpA7KHRl k1oSIMnOXwMpmc9RA75xTlWMHgiuuY4K5Iv4Cjwel+PUmLDut7agfVw58qHIKhVUkT+u AiEoxnxeCRFfI77NYG3j5xM1N+w5MAFVJlsXtQhA2DwQUZedOdZf/YU1fyGDbLmRhEuI p+1w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=UEWYKVrLyoeo+EHNXuBgk1+ZBNjf1UAZ3jeHlECOcAQ=; b=TTsISRHLq+kGGx6upVXtJt6QwoXDaOsxujB6xwT72B0j3FFL1I+7SSNb6YxJJ4gu+D jpCSRYU0vFZp/M3Ip2u9s042tGoMN3M8EVG6buMBhxB11wHLNe30TO5SzRmzaHWLSwYG FjgaEMpWkKOIzt9VGrXWOwp44TXMt/WJ4DwbQBT8+sAI7LwapyDW0HzEyDrt6dij1Bkg 6ngfGODEuWgjFf4kGUOzFkmp4T2tDLZtwzmiYKAL2hY4OzPNQ1BP76Dg3ls4HAF0GXds VAxJR4DMPmRzz/nXsRqnCagVXwAZ8dZiZ06rIn90KQnqj+9JVztnge8qypTcj3w/y+i6 +urw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@chrisdown.name header.s=google header.b=McgI8bfv; spf=pass (google.com: domain of chris@chrisdown.name designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=chris@chrisdown.name; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=chrisdown.name Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id t4sor6414274ywa.78.2019.01.29.10.25.17 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:25:17 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of chris@chrisdown.name designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@chrisdown.name header.s=google header.b=McgI8bfv; spf=pass (google.com: domain of chris@chrisdown.name designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=chris@chrisdown.name; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=chrisdown.name DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :user-agent; bh=UEWYKVrLyoeo+EHNXuBgk1+ZBNjf1UAZ3jeHlECOcAQ=; b=McgI8bfvdTRAl+2DLzBET3/Zjz/BtOczncjJHHBGvJ3GOUy9g7c49IqGOr3yNuniV0 oqcOkePmToWyG86MaU9XxkXYumP42ZRTkHKM7Smar0unOFX53UAIgM7g+/0Poxdi7oI1 PzErKCQtFsTmSap0QpdD/5nml7gMUDzxJk/Bs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN577D3vsrWrco8DYQ5GHfXNdfHyNspCRtVPvoceQad/0oDbiZflNlI4aul0HsoG3q7bwTR0JA== X-Received: by 2002:a81:6246:: with SMTP id w67mr26154697ywb.60.1548786317308; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:25:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:200::6:f1fc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k62sm15883985ywk.84.2019.01.29.10.25.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:25:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:25:16 -0500 From: Chris Down To: Andrew Morton Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Tejun Heo , Roman Gushchin , Dennis Zhou , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: [PATCH] mm: Make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination Message-ID: <20190129182516.GA1834@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Roman points out that when when we do the low reclaim pass, we scale the reclaim pressure relative to position between 0 and the maximum protection threshold. However, if the maximum protection is based on memory.elow, and memory.emin is above zero, this means we still may get binary behaviour on second-pass low reclaim. This is because we scale starting at 0, not starting at memory.emin, and since we don't scan at all below emin, we end up with cliff behaviour. This should be a fairly uncommon case since usually we don't go into the second pass, but it makes sense to scale our low reclaim pressure starting at emin. You can test this by catting two large sparse files, one in a cgroup with emin set to some moderate size compared to physical RAM, and another cgroup without any emin. In both cgroups, set an elow larger than 50% of physical RAM. The one with emin will have less page scanning, as reclaim pressure is lower. Signed-off-by: Chris Down Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Dennis Zhou Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: kernel-team@fb.com --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 6 +++-- mm/vmscan.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 290cfbfd60cd..89e460f9612f 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -333,9 +333,11 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(void) return !cgroup_subsys_enabled(memory_cgrp_subsys); } -static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, + unsigned long *min, unsigned long *low) { - return max(READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin), READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow)); + *min = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin); + *low = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow); } enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 549251818605..f7c4ab39d5d0 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2447,12 +2447,12 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int file = is_file_lru(lru); unsigned long lruvec_size; unsigned long scan; - unsigned long protection; + unsigned long min, low; lruvec_size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx); - protection = mem_cgroup_protection(memcg); + mem_cgroup_protection(memcg, &min, &low); - if (protection > 0) { + if (min || low) { /* * Scale a cgroup's reclaim pressure by proportioning * its current usage to its memory.low or memory.min @@ -2467,28 +2467,38 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, * set it too low, which is not ideal. */ unsigned long cgroup_size = mem_cgroup_size(memcg); - unsigned long baseline = 0; /* - * During the reclaim first pass, we only consider - * cgroups in excess of their protection setting, but if - * that doesn't produce free pages, we come back for a - * second pass where we reclaim from all groups. + * If there is any protection in place, we adjust scan + * pressure in proportion to how much a group's current + * usage exceeds that, in percent. * - * To maintain fairness in both cases, the first pass - * targets groups in proportion to their overage, and - * the second pass targets groups in proportion to their - * protection utilization. - * - * So on the first pass, a group whose size is 130% of - * its protection will be targeted at 30% of its size. - * On the second pass, a group whose size is at 40% of - * its protection will be - * targeted at 40% of its size. + * There is one special case: in the first reclaim pass, + * we skip over all groups that are within their low + * protection. If that fails to reclaim enough pages to + * satisfy the reclaim goal, we come back and override + * the best-effort low protection. However, we still + * ideally want to honor how well-behaved groups are in + * that case instead of simply punishing them all + * equally. As such, we reclaim them based on how much + * of their best-effort protection they are using. Usage + * below memory.min is excluded from consideration when + * calculating utilisation, as it isn't ever + * reclaimable, so it might as well not exist for our + * purposes. */ - if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim) - baseline = lruvec_size; - scan = lruvec_size * cgroup_size / protection - baseline; + if (sc->memcg_low_reclaim && low > min) { + /* + * Reclaim according to utilisation between min + * and low + */ + scan = lruvec_size * (cgroup_size - min) / + (low - min); + } else { + /* Reclaim according to protection overage */ + scan = lruvec_size * cgroup_size / + max(min, low) - lruvec_size; + } /* * Don't allow the scan target to exceed the lruvec @@ -2504,7 +2514,8 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, * some cases in the case of large overages. * * Also, minimally target SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages to keep - * reclaim moving forwards. + * reclaim moving forwards, avoiding decremeting + * sc->priority further than desirable. */ scan = clamp(scan, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec_size); } else {