Date:	Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:50:54 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4 v2] mm: exclude reserved pages from dirtyable memory

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 01:55:51PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:38:17PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > The amount of dirtyable pages should not include the full number of
> > free pages: there is a number of reserved pages that the page
> > allocator and kswapd always try to keep free.
> > 
> > The closer (reclaimable pages - dirty pages) is to the number of
> > reserved pages, the more likely it becomes for reclaim to run into
> > dirty pages:
> > 
> >        +----------+ ---
> >        |   anon   |  |
> >        +----------+  |
> >        |          |  |
> >        |          |  -- dirty limit new    -- flusher new
> >        |   file   |  |                     |
> >        |          |  |                     |
> >        |          |  -- dirty limit old    -- flusher old
> >        |          |                        |
> >        +----------+                       --- reclaim
> >        | reserved |
> >        +----------+
> >        |  kernel  |
> >        +----------+
> > 
> > This patch introduces a per-zone dirty reserve that takes both the
> > lowmem reserve as well as the high watermark of the zone into account,
> > and a global sum of those per-zone values that is subtracted from the
> > global amount of dirtyable pages.  The lowmem reserve is unavailable
> > to page cache allocations and kswapd tries to keep the high watermark
> > free.  We don't want to end up in a situation where reclaim has to
> > clean pages in order to balance zones.
> > 
> > Not treating reserved pages as dirtyable on a global level is only a
> > conceptual fix.  In reality, dirty pages are not distributed equally
> > across zones and reclaim runs into dirty pages on a regular basis.
> > 
> > But it is important to get this right before tackling the problem on a
> > per-zone level, where the distance between reclaim and the dirty pages
> > is mostly much smaller in absolute numbers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/mmzone.h |    6 ++++++
> >  include/linux/swap.h   |    1 +
> >  mm/page-writeback.c    |    6 ++++--
> >  mm/page_alloc.c        |   19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > index 1ed4116..37a61e7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> > @@ -317,6 +317,12 @@ struct zone {
> >  	 */
> >  	unsigned long		lowmem_reserve[MAX_NR_ZONES];
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * This is a per-zone reserve of pages that should not be
> > +	 * considered dirtyable memory.
> > +	 */
> > +	unsigned long		dirty_balance_reserve;
> > +
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> >  	int node;
> >  	/*
> > diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> > index b156e80..9021453 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> > @@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ struct swap_list_t {
> >  /* linux/mm/page_alloc.c */
> >  extern unsigned long totalram_pages;
> >  extern unsigned long totalreserve_pages;
> > +extern unsigned long dirty_balance_reserve;
> >  extern unsigned int nr_free_buffer_pages(void);
> >  extern unsigned int nr_free_pagecache_pages(void);
> >  
> > diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > index da6d263..c8acf8a 100644
> > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> > +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > @@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ static unsigned long highmem_dirtyable_memory(unsigned long total)
> >  			&NODE_DATA(node)->node_zones[ZONE_HIGHMEM];
> >  
> >  		x += zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_PAGES) +
> > -		     zone_reclaimable_pages(z);
> > +		     zone_reclaimable_pages(z) -
> > +		     zone->dirty_balance_reserve;
> >  	}
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Make sure that the number of highmem pages is never larger
> > @@ -194,7 +195,8 @@ static unsigned long determine_dirtyable_memory(void)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long x;
> >  
> > -	x = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) + global_reclaimable_pages();
> > +	x = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) + global_reclaimable_pages() -
> > +	    dirty_balance_reserve;
> >  
> >  	if (!vm_highmem_is_dirtyable)
> >  		x -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(x);
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 1dba05e..f8cba89 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -96,6 +96,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_states);
> >  
> >  unsigned long totalram_pages __read_mostly;
> >  unsigned long totalreserve_pages __read_mostly;
> > +/*
> > + * When calculating the number of globally allowed dirty pages, there
> > + * is a certain number of per-zone reserves that should not be
> > + * considered dirtyable memory.  This is the sum of those reserves
> > + * over all existing zones that contribute dirtyable memory.
> > + */
> > +unsigned long dirty_balance_reserve __read_mostly;
> > +
> >  int percpu_pagelist_fraction;
> >  gfp_t gfp_allowed_mask __read_mostly = GFP_BOOT_MASK;
> >  
> > @@ -5076,8 +5084,19 @@ static void calculate_totalreserve_pages(void)
> >  			if (max > zone->present_pages)
> >  				max = zone->present_pages;
> >  			reserve_pages += max;
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Lowmem reserves are not available to
> > +			 * GFP_HIGHUSER page cache allocations and
> > +			 * kswapd tries to balance zones to their high
> > +			 * watermark.  As a result, neither should be
> > +			 * regarded as dirtyable memory, to prevent a
> > +			 * situation where reclaim has to clean pages
> > +			 * in order to balance the zones.
> > +			 */
> 
> Could you put Mel's description instead of it if you don't mind?
> If I didn't see Mel's thing, maybe I wouldn't suggest but it looks
> more easier to understand.

I changed it because it was already referring to allocation placement,
but at the point in time where this comment is introduced there is no
allocation placement based on dirty pages yet.

The other thing is that it said lowmem_reserves were respected to
prevent increasing lowmem pressure, but lowmem is protected by the
watermark checks during the allocation.  I took it into account to not
end up with a number of dirtyable pages that is bigger than the amount
of technically available page cache pages.  Otherwise, you could end
up with all page cache pages in a zone dirtied at the time reclaim
kicks in and we are back to square one.

Maybe you can fingerpoint to the part that is harder to understand so
I can fix it?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists