linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] mm: vmscan: Obey proportional scanning requirements for kswapd

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:16:47 +0900
From:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Zlatko Calusic <zcalusic@...sync.net>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	dormando <dormando@...ia.net>,
	Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] mm: vmscan: Obey proportional scanning requirements
 for kswapd

(2013/04/09 20:06), Mel Gorman wrote:
> Simplistically, the anon and file LRU lists are scanned proportionally
> depending on the value of vm.swappiness although there are other factors
> taken into account by get_scan_count().  The patch "mm: vmscan: Limit
> the number of pages kswapd reclaims" limits the number of pages kswapd
> reclaims but it breaks this proportional scanning and may evenly shrink
> anon/file LRUs regardless of vm.swappiness.
> 
> This patch preserves the proportional scanning and reclaim. It does mean
> that kswapd will reclaim more than requested but the number of pages will
> be related to the high watermark.
> 
> [mhocko@...e.cz: Correct proportional reclaim for memcg and simplify]
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> ---
>   mm/vmscan.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 4835a7a..0742c45 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1825,13 +1825,21 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
>   	enum lru_list lru;
>   	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
>   	unsigned long nr_to_reclaim = sc->nr_to_reclaim;
> +	unsigned long nr_anon_scantarget, nr_file_scantarget;
>   	struct blk_plug plug;
> +	bool scan_adjusted = false;
>   
>   	get_scan_count(lruvec, sc, nr);
>   
> +	/* Record the original scan target for proportional adjustments later */
> +	nr_file_scantarget = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] + 1;
> +	nr_anon_scantarget = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON] + 1;
> +

I'm sorry I couldn't understand the calc...

Assume here
        nr_file_scantarget = 100
        nr_anon_file_target = 100.


>   	blk_start_plug(&plug);
>   	while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
>   					nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]) {
> +		unsigned long nr_anon, nr_file, percentage;
> +
>   		for_each_evictable_lru(lru) {
>   			if (nr[lru]) {
>   				nr_to_scan = min(nr[lru], SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
> @@ -1841,17 +1849,47 @@ static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
>   							    lruvec, sc);
>   			}
>   		}
> +
> +		if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || scan_adjusted)
> +			continue;
> +
>   		/*
> -		 * On large memory systems, scan >> priority can become
> -		 * really large. This is fine for the starting priority;
> -		 * we want to put equal scanning pressure on each zone.
> -		 * However, if the VM has a harder time of freeing pages,
> -		 * with multiple processes reclaiming pages, the total
> -		 * freeing target can get unreasonably large.
> +		 * For global direct reclaim, reclaim only the number of pages
> +		 * requested. Less care is taken to scan proportionally as it
> +		 * is more important to minimise direct reclaim stall latency
> +		 * than it is to properly age the LRU lists.
>   		 */
> -		if (nr_reclaimed >= nr_to_reclaim &&
> -		    sc->priority < DEF_PRIORITY)
> +		if (global_reclaim(sc) && !current_is_kswapd())
>   			break;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * For kswapd and memcg, reclaim at least the number of pages
> +		 * requested. Ensure that the anon and file LRUs shrink
> +		 * proportionally what was requested by get_scan_count(). We
> +		 * stop reclaiming one LRU and reduce the amount scanning
> +		 * proportional to the original scan target.
> +		 */
> +		nr_file = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE];
> +		nr_anon = nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] + nr[LRU_ACTIVE_ANON];
> +
Then, nr_file = 80, nr_anon=70.


> +		if (nr_file > nr_anon) {
> +			lru = LRU_BASE;
> +			percentage = nr_anon * 100 / nr_anon_scantarget;
> +		} else {
> +			lru = LRU_FILE;
> +			percentage = nr_file * 100 / nr_file_scantarget;
> +		}

the percentage will be 70.

> +
> +		/* Stop scanning the smaller of the LRU */
> +		nr[lru] = 0;
> +		nr[lru + LRU_ACTIVE] = 0;
> +
this will stop anon scan.

> +		/* Reduce scanning of the other LRU proportionally */
> +		lru = (lru == LRU_FILE) ? LRU_BASE : LRU_FILE;
> +		nr[lru] = nr[lru] * percentage / 100;;
> +		nr[lru + LRU_ACTIVE] = nr[lru + LRU_ACTIVE] * percentage / 100;
> +

finally, in the next iteration,

              nr[file] = 80 * 0.7 = 56.
             
After loop, anon-scan is 30 pages , file-scan is 76(20+56) pages..

I think the calc here should be

   nr[lru] = nr_lru_scantarget * percentage / 100 - nr[lru]

   Here, 80-70=10 more pages to scan..should be proportional.

Am I misunderstanding ?

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/