[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090608165457.fa8d17e6.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:54:57 +0900
From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] vmscan: fix may_swap handling for memcg
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:53:50 +0900 (JST), KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:20:54 +0900 (JST), KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > Hi, thank you for your comment.
> >
> > > > From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
> > > >
> > > > Commit 2e2e425989080cc534fc0fca154cae515f971cf5 ("vmscan,memcg: reintroduce
> > > > sc->may_swap) add may_swap flag and handle it at get_scan_ratio().
> > > >
> > > > But the result of get_scan_ratio() is ignored when priority == 0, and this
> > > > means, when memcg hits the mem+swap limit, anon pages can be swapped
> > > > just in vain. Especially when memcg causes oom by mem+swap limit,
> > > > we can see many and many pages are swapped out.
> > > >
> > > > Instead of not scanning anon lru completely when priority == 0, this patch adds
> > > > a hook to handle may_swap flag in shrink_page_list() to avoid using useless swaps,
> > > > and calls try_to_free_swap() if needed because it can reduce
> > > > both mem.usage and memsw.usage if the page(SwapCache) is unused anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Such unused-but-managed-under-memcg SwapCache can be made in some paths,
> > > > for example trylock_page() failure in free_swap_cache().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
> > >
> > > I think root cause is following branch, right?
> > yes.
> >
> > > if so, Why can't we handle this issue on shrink_zone()?
> > >
> > Just because priority==0 means oom is about to happen and I don't
> > want to see oom if possible.
> > So I thought it would be better to reclaim as much pages(memsw.usage) as possible
> > in this case.
>
> hmmm..
>
> In general, adding new branch to shrink_page_list() is not good idea.
> it can cause performance degression.
>
> Plus, it is not big problem at all. it happen only when priority==0.
> Definitely, priority==0 don't occur normally.
But it happens under high memory pressure...
> and, too many recliaming pages is not only memcg issue. I don't think this
> patch provide generic solution.
>
Ah, you're right. It's not only memcg issue.
>
> Why your test environment makes oom so frequently?
>
Not so frequently :)
But I can see almost all of pages are swapped-out when memcg causes oom
by memsw.limit(it's a waste of cpu time).
And even after Kamezawa-san's memcg-fix-behavior-under-memorylimit-equals-to-memswlimit.patch,
I can sometimes see swap usage when mem.limit==memsw.limit(it's a waste of cpu time too).
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
--
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