[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5008CE38.2020300@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:19:20 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"andi.kleen" <andi.kleen@...el.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cgroup: Fix memory accounting scalability in shrink_page_list
(2012/07/20 8:34), Tim Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed in a multi-process parallel files reading benchmark I ran on a
> 8 socket machine, throughput slowed down by a factor of 8 when I ran
> the benchmark within a cgroup container. I traced the problem to the
> following code path (see below) when we are trying to reclaim memory
> from file cache. The res_counter_uncharge function is called on every
> page that's reclaimed and created heavy lock contention. The patch
> below allows the reclaimed pages to be uncharged from the resource
> counter in batch and recovered the regression.
>
> Tim
>
> 40.67% usemem [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> |
> --- _raw_spin_lock
> |
> |--92.61%-- res_counter_uncharge
> | |
> | |--100.00%-- __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common
> | | |
> | | |--100.00%-- mem_cgroup_uncharge_cache_page
> | | | __remove_mapping
> | | | shrink_page_list
> | | | shrink_inactive_list
> | | | shrink_mem_cgroup_zone
> | | | shrink_zone
> | | | do_try_to_free_pages
> | | | try_to_free_pages
> | | | __alloc_pages_nodemask
> | | | alloc_pages_current
>
>
Thank you very much !!
When I added batching, I didn't touch page-reclaim path because it delays
res_counter_uncharge() and make more threads run into page reclaim.
But, from above score, bactching seems required.
And because of current design of per-zone-per-memcg-LRU, batching
works very very well....all lru pages shrink_page_list() scans are on
the same memcg.
BTW, it's better to show 'how much improved' in patch description..
> ---
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 33dc256..aac5672 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -779,6 +779,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
>
> cond_resched();
>
> + mem_cgroup_uncharge_start();
> while (!list_empty(page_list)) {
> enum page_references references;
> struct address_space *mapping;
> @@ -1026,6 +1027,7 @@ keep_lumpy:
>
> list_splice(&ret_pages, page_list);
> count_vm_events(PGACTIVATE, pgactivate);
> + mem_cgroup_uncharge_end();
I guess placing mem_cgroup_uncharge_end() just after the loop may be better looking.
Anyway,
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
But please show 'how much improved' in patch description.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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