| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjennings@...iantweb.net>,
Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] mm: Only force scan in reclaim when none of the LRUs are
big enough.
From: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Prior to this change, we would decide whether to force scan a LRU
during reclaim if that LRU itself was too small for the current
priority. However, this can lead to the file LRU getting force
scanned even if there are a lot of anonymous pages we can reclaim,
leading to hot file pages getting needlessly reclaimed.
To address this, we instead only force scan when none of the
reclaimable LRUs are big enough.
Gives huge improvements with zswap. For example, when doing -j20
kernel build in a 500MB container with zswap enabled, runtime (in
seconds) is greatly reduced:
x without this change
+ with this change
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 5 700.997 790.076 763.928 754.05 39.59493
+ 5 141.634 197.899 155.706 161.9 21.270224
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-592.15 +/- 46.3521
-78.5293% +/- 6.14709%
(Student's t, pooled s = 31.7819)
Should also give some improvements in regular (non-zswap) swap cases.
Yes, hughd found significant speedup using regular swap, with several
memcgs under pressure; and it should also be effective in the non-memcg
case, whenever one or another zone LRU is forced too small.
Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
---
I apologize to everyone for holding on to this so long: I think it's
a very helpful patch (which we've been using in Google for months now).
Been sitting on my TODO list, now prompted to send by related patches
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/13/217
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/277
Certainly worth considering all three together, but my understanding
is that they're actually three independent attacks on different ways
in which we currently squeeze an LRU too small; and this patch from
Suleiman seems to be the most valuable of the three, at least for
the workloads I've tried it on. But I'm not much of a page reclaim
performance tester: please try it out to see if it's good for you.
Thanks!
mm/vmscan.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
We did experiment with different ways of writing the patch, I'm afraid
the way it came out best indents deeper, making it look more than it is.
--- 3.14-rc6/mm/vmscan.c 2014-02-02 18:49:07.949302116 -0800
+++ linux/mm/vmscan.c 2014-03-15 19:31:44.948977032 -0700
@@ -1852,6 +1852,8 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec
bool force_scan = false;
unsigned long ap, fp;
enum lru_list lru;
+ bool some_scanned;
+ int pass;
/*
* If the zone or memcg is small, nr[l] can be 0. This
@@ -1971,39 +1973,49 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec
fraction[1] = fp;
denominator = ap + fp + 1;
out:
- for_each_evictable_lru(lru) {
- int file = is_file_lru(lru);
- unsigned long size;
- unsigned long scan;
-
- size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
- scan = size >> sc->priority;
-
- if (!scan && force_scan)
- scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
-
- switch (scan_balance) {
- case SCAN_EQUAL:
- /* Scan lists relative to size */
- break;
- case SCAN_FRACT:
+ some_scanned = false;
+ /* Only use force_scan on second pass. */
+ for (pass = 0; !some_scanned && pass < 2; pass++) {
+ for_each_evictable_lru(lru) {
+ int file = is_file_lru(lru);
+ unsigned long size;
+ unsigned long scan;
+
+ size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
+ scan = size >> sc->priority;
+
+ if (!scan && pass && force_scan)
+ scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
+
+ switch (scan_balance) {
+ case SCAN_EQUAL:
+ /* Scan lists relative to size */
+ break;
+ case SCAN_FRACT:
+ /*
+ * Scan types proportional to swappiness and
+ * their relative recent reclaim efficiency.
+ */
+ scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file],
+ denominator);
+ break;
+ case SCAN_FILE:
+ case SCAN_ANON:
+ /* Scan one type exclusively */
+ if ((scan_balance == SCAN_FILE) != file)
+ scan = 0;
+ break;
+ default:
+ /* Look ma, no brain */
+ BUG();
+ }
+ nr[lru] = scan;
/*
- * Scan types proportional to swappiness and
- * their relative recent reclaim efficiency.
+ * Skip the second pass and don't force_scan,
+ * if we found something to scan.
*/
- scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file], denominator);
- break;
- case SCAN_FILE:
- case SCAN_ANON:
- /* Scan one type exclusively */
- if ((scan_balance == SCAN_FILE) != file)
- scan = 0;
- break;
- default:
- /* Look ma, no brain */
- BUG();
+ some_scanned |= !!scan;
}
- nr[lru] = scan;
}
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists