Message-ID: <20120312151542.GA16253@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:15:43 +0800
From:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, riel@...hat.com,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Control page reclaim granularity

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:42:26PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 04:14:14PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > On 03/12/2012 02:20 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:06:09AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:29:34AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >>>> I forgot to Ccing you.
> > >>>> Sorry.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >>>> From: Minchan Kim<minchan@...nel.org>
> > >>>> Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Control page reclaim granularity
> > >>>> To: Minchan Kim<minchan@...nel.org>, linux-mm<linux-mm@...ck.org>,
> > >>>> linux-kernel<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Konstantin Khlebnikov<
> > >>>> khlebnikov@...nvz.org>, riel@...hat.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:54:03AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Minchan,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sorry, I forgot to say that I don't subscribe linux-mm and
> > >>>>> linux-kernel
> > >>>>> mailing list.  So please Cc me.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> IMHO, maybe we should re-think about how does user use mmap(2).  I
> > >>>>> describe the cases I known in our product system.  They can be
> > >>>>> categorized into two cases.  One is mmaped all data files into memory
> > >>>>> and sometime it uses write(2) to append some data, and another uses
> > >>>>> mmap(2)/munmap(2) and read(2)/write(2) to manipulate the files.  In
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> second case,  the application wants to keep mmaped page into memory
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>> let file pages to be reclaimed firstly.  So, IMO, when application
> > >>>>> uses
> > >>>>> mmap(2) to manipulate files, it is possible to imply that it wants
> > >>>>> keep
> > >>>>> these mmaped pages into memory and do not be reclaimed.  At least
> > >>>>> these
> > >>>>> pages do not be reclaimed early than file pages.  I think that
> > >>>>> maybe we
> > >>>>> can recover that routine and provide a sysctl parameter to let the
> > >>>>> user
> > >>>>> to set this ratio between mmaped pages and file pages.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am not convinced why we should handle mapped page specially.
> > >>>> Sometimem, someone may use mmap by reducing buffer copy compared to
> > >>>> read
> > >>>> system call.
> > >>>> So I think we can't make sure mmaped pages are always win.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My suggestion is that it would be better to declare by user explicitly.
> > >>>> I think we can implement it by madvise and fadvise's WILLNEED option.
> > >>>> Current implementation is just readahead if there isn't a page in
> > >>>> memory
> > >>>> but I think
> > >>>> we can promote from inactive to active if there is already a page in
> > >>>> memory.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's more clear and it couldn't be affected by kernel page reclaim
> > >>>> algorithm change
> > >>>> like this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you for your advice.  But I still have question about this
> > >>> solution.  If we improve the madvise(2) and fadvise(2)'s WILLNEED
> > >>> option,  it will cause an inconsistently status for pages that be
> > >>> manipulated by madvise(2) and/or fadvise(2).  For example, when I call
> > >>> madvise with WILLNEED flag, some pages will be moved into active list if
> > >>> they already have been in memory, and other pages will be read into
> > >>> memory and be saved in inactive list if they don't be in memory.  Then
> > >>> pages that are in inactive list are possible to be reclaim.  So from the
> > >>> view of users, it is inconsistent because some pages are in memory and
> > >>> some pages are reclaimed.  But actually the user hopes that all of pages
> > >>> can be kept in memory.  IMHO, this inconsistency is weird and makes
> > >>> users
> > >>> puzzled.
> > >>
> > >> Now problem is that
> > >>
> > >> 1. User want to keep pages which are used once in a while in memory.
> > >> 2. Kernel want to reclaim them because they are surely reclaim target
> > >>     pages in point of view by LRU.
> > >>
> > >> The most desriable approach is that user should use mlock to guarantee
> > >> them in memory. But mlock is too big overhead and user doesn't want to
> > >> keep
> > >> memory all pages all at once.(Ie, he want demand paging when he need
> > >> the page)
> > >> Right?
> > >>
> > >> madvise, it's a just hint for kernel and kernel doesn't need to make
> > >> sure madvise's behavior.
> > >> In point of view, such inconsistency might not be a big problem.
> > >>
> > >> Big problem I think now is that user should use madvise(WILLNEED)
> > >> periodically because such
> > >> activation happens once when user calls madvise. If user doesn't use
> > >> page frequently after
> > >> user calls it, it ends up moving into inactive list and even could be
> > >> reclaimed.
> > >> It's not good. :-(
> > >>
> > >> Okay. How about adding new VM_WORKINGSET?
> > >> And reclaimer would give one more round trip in active/inactive list
> > >> erwhen reclaim happens
> > >> if the page is referenced.
> > >>
> > >> Sigh. We have no room for new VM_FLAG in 32 bit.
> > > p
> > > It would be nice to mark struct address_space with this flag and export
> > > AS_UNEVICTABLE somehow.
> > > Maybe we can reuse file-locking engine for managing these bits =)
> > 
> > Make sense to me.  We can mark this flag in struct address_space and check
> > it in page_refereneced_file().  If this flag is set, it will be cleard and
> 
> Disadvantage is that we could set reclaim granularity as per-inode.
> I want to set it as per-vma, not per-inode.

I don't think this is a disadvantage.  This per-inode reclaim
granularity is useful for us.  Actually I have thought to implement a
per-inode memcg to let different file sets to be reclaimed separately.
So maybe we can provide two mechanisms to let the user to choose how to
use them.

> 
> > the function returns referenced > 1.  Then this page can be promoted into
> > activate list.  But I prefer to set/clear this flag in madvise.
> 
> Hmm, My idea is following as,
> If we can set new VM flag into VMA or something, reclaimer can check it when shrink_[in]active_list
> and he can prevent to deactivate/reclaim if he takes a look the page is in VMA which
> are set by new VM flag and the page is referenced recently at least once.
> It means it gives one more round trip in his list(ie, active/inactive list)
> rather than activation so that the page would become less reclaimable.

No matter what the page is given one more round trip or is promoted into
active list, it can satisfy our current requirement.  So now the
question is which is better.  If we add a new VM flag, as you said
before, vma->vm_flags has no room for it in 32 bit.  I have noticed that
this topic has been discussed [1] and the result is that vm_flags is
still a unsigned long type.  So we need to use a tricky technique to solve
it.  If we add a new flag in struct addpress_space, it might be easy to
implement it.

1. http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1104.1/00975.html

Regards,
Zheng
--
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