Message-ID: <20140123055740.GA14369@bbox>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:57:40 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Metin Doslu <metin@...usdata.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Ozgun Erdogan <ozgun@...usdata.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 9/9] mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 06:17:37PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:05:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:10:43PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Previously, page cache radix tree nodes were freed after reclaim
> > > emptied out their page pointers.  But now reclaim stores shadow
> > > entries in their place, which are only reclaimed when the inodes
> > > themselves are reclaimed.  This is problematic for bigger files that
> > > are still in use after they have a significant amount of their cache
> > > reclaimed, without any of those pages actually refaulting.  The shadow
> > > entries will just sit there and waste memory.  In the worst case, the
> > > shadow entries will accumulate until the machine runs out of memory.
> > > 
> > > To get this under control, the VM will track radix tree nodes
> > > exclusively containing shadow entries on a per-NUMA node list.
> > > Per-NUMA rather than global because we expect the radix tree nodes
> > > themselves to be allocated node-locally and we want to reduce
> > > cross-node references of otherwise independent cache workloads.  A
> > > simple shrinker will then reclaim these nodes on memory pressure.
> > > 
> > > A few things need to be stored in the radix tree node to implement the
> > > shadow node LRU and allow tree deletions coming from the list:
> > 
> > Just a couple of things with the list_lru interfaces.
> > 
> > ....
> > > @@ -123,9 +129,39 @@ static void page_cache_tree_delete(struct address_space *mapping,
> > >  		 * same time and miss a shadow entry.
> > >  		 */
> > >  		smp_wmb();
> > > -	} else
> > > -		radix_tree_delete(&mapping->page_tree, page->index);
> > > +	}
> > >  	mapping->nrpages--;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!node) {
> > > +		/* Clear direct pointer tags in root node */
> > > +		mapping->page_tree.gfp_mask &= __GFP_BITS_MASK;
> > > +		radix_tree_replace_slot(slot, shadow);
> > > +		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	/* Clear tree tags for the removed page */
> > > +	index = page->index;
> > > +	offset = index & RADIX_TREE_MAP_MASK;
> > > +	for (tag = 0; tag < RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS; tag++) {
> > > +		if (test_bit(offset, node->tags[tag]))
> > > +			radix_tree_tag_clear(&mapping->page_tree, index, tag);
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	/* Delete page, swap shadow entry */
> > > +	radix_tree_replace_slot(slot, shadow);
> > > +	node->count--;
> > > +	if (shadow)
> > > +		node->count += 1U << RADIX_TREE_COUNT_SHIFT;
> > > +	else
> > > +		if (__radix_tree_delete_node(&mapping->page_tree, node))
> > > +			return;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Only shadow entries in there, keep track of this node */
> > > +	if (!(node->count & RADIX_TREE_COUNT_MASK) &&
> > > +	    list_empty(&node->private_list)) {
> > > +		node->private_data = mapping;
> > > +		list_lru_add(&workingset_shadow_nodes, &node->private_list);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > You can't do this list_empty(&node->private_list) check safely
> > externally to the list_lru code - only time that entry can be
> > checked safely is under the LRU list locks. This is the reason that
> > list_lru_add/list_lru_del return a boolean to indicate is the object
> > was added/removed from the list - they do this list_empty() check
> > internally. i.e. the correct, safe way to do conditionally update
> > state iff the object was added to the LRU is:
> > 
> > 	if (!(node->count & RADIX_TREE_COUNT_MASK)) {
> > 		if (list_lru_add(&workingset_shadow_nodes, &node->private_list))
> > 			node->private_data = mapping;
> > 	}
> > 
> > > +	radix_tree_replace_slot(slot, page);
> > > +	mapping->nrpages++;
> > > +	if (node) {
> > > +		node->count++;
> > > +		/* Installed page, can't be shadow-only anymore */
> > > +		if (!list_empty(&node->private_list))
> > > +			list_lru_del(&workingset_shadow_nodes,
> > > +				     &node->private_list);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Same issue here:
> > 
> > 	if (node) {
> > 		node->count++;
> > 		list_lru_del(&workingset_shadow_nodes, &node->private_list);
> > 	}
> 
> All modifications to node->private_list happen under
> mapping->tree_lock, and modifications of a neighboring link should not
> affect the outcome of the list_empty(), so I don't think the lru lock
> is necessary.
> 
> It would be cleaner to take it of course, but that would mean adding
> an unconditional NUMAnode-wide lock to every page cache population.
> 
> > >  static int __add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page,
> > > diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
> > > index 72f9decb0104..47a9faf4070b 100644
> > > --- a/mm/list_lru.c
> > > +++ b/mm/list_lru.c
> > > @@ -88,10 +88,18 @@ restart:
> > >  		ret = isolate(item, &nlru->lock, cb_arg);
> > >  		switch (ret) {
> > >  		case LRU_REMOVED:
> > > +		case LRU_REMOVED_RETRY:
> > >  			if (--nlru->nr_items == 0)
> > >  				node_clear(nid, lru->active_nodes);
> > >  			WARN_ON_ONCE(nlru->nr_items < 0);
> > >  			isolated++;
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * If the lru lock has been dropped, our list
> > > +			 * traversal is now invalid and so we have to
> > > +			 * restart from scratch.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			if (ret == LRU_REMOVED_RETRY)
> > > +				goto restart;
> > >  			break;
> > >  		case LRU_ROTATE:
> > >  			list_move_tail(item, &nlru->list);
> > 
> > I think that we need to assert that the list lru lock is correctly
> > held here on return with LRU_REMOVED_RETRY. i.e.
> > 
> > 		case LRU_REMOVED_RETRY:
> > 			assert_spin_locked(&nlru->lock);
> > 		case LRU_REMOVED:
> 
> Ah, good idea.  How about adding it to LRU_RETRY as well?
> 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Page cache radix tree nodes containing only shadow entries can grow
> > > + * excessively on certain workloads.  That's why they are tracked on
> > > + * per-(NUMA)node lists and pushed back by a shrinker, but with a
> > > + * slightly higher threshold than regular shrinkers so we don't
> > > + * discard the entries too eagerly - after all, during light memory
> > > + * pressure is exactly when we need them.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +struct list_lru workingset_shadow_nodes;
> > > +
> > > +static unsigned long count_shadow_nodes(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> > > +					struct shrink_control *sc)
> > > +{
> > > +	return list_lru_count_node(&workingset_shadow_nodes, sc->nid);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static enum lru_status shadow_lru_isolate(struct list_head *item,
> > > +					  spinlock_t *lru_lock,
> > > +					  void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned long *nr_reclaimed = arg;
> > > +	struct address_space *mapping;
> > > +	struct radix_tree_node *node;
> > > +	unsigned int i;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Page cache insertions and deletions synchroneously maintain
> > > +	 * the shadow node LRU under the mapping->tree_lock and the
> > > +	 * lru_lock.  Because the page cache tree is emptied before
> > > +	 * the inode can be destroyed, holding the lru_lock pins any
> > > +	 * address_space that has radix tree nodes on the LRU.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * We can then safely transition to the mapping->tree_lock to
> > > +	 * pin only the address_space of the particular node we want
> > > +	 * to reclaim, take the node off-LRU, and drop the lru_lock.
> > > +	 */
> > > +
> > > +	node = container_of(item, struct radix_tree_node, private_list);
> > > +	mapping = node->private_data;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Coming from the list, invert the lock order */
> > > +	if (!spin_trylock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)) {
> > > +		spin_unlock(lru_lock);
> > > +		ret = LRU_RETRY;
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	list_del_init(item);
> > > +	spin_unlock(lru_lock);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The nodes should only contain one or more shadow entries,
> > > +	 * no pages, so we expect to be able to remove them all and
> > > +	 * delete and free the empty node afterwards.
> > > +	 */
> > > +
> > > +	BUG_ON(!node->count);
> > > +	BUG_ON(node->count & RADIX_TREE_COUNT_MASK);
> > > +
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < RADIX_TREE_MAP_SIZE; i++) {
> > > +		if (node->slots[i]) {
> > > +			BUG_ON(!radix_tree_exceptional_entry(node->slots[i]));
> > > +			node->slots[i] = NULL;
> > > +			BUG_ON(node->count < (1U << RADIX_TREE_COUNT_SHIFT));
> > > +			node->count -= 1U << RADIX_TREE_COUNT_SHIFT;
> > > +			BUG_ON(!mapping->nrshadows);
> > > +			mapping->nrshadows--;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +	BUG_ON(node->count);
> > > +	inc_zone_state(page_zone(virt_to_page(node)), WORKINGSET_NODERECLAIM);
> > > +	if (!__radix_tree_delete_node(&mapping->page_tree, node))
> > > +		BUG();
> > > +	(*nr_reclaimed)++;
> > > +
> > > +	spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > > +	ret = LRU_REMOVED_RETRY;
> > > +out:
> > > +	cond_resched();
> > > +	spin_lock(lru_lock);
> > > +	return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static unsigned long scan_shadow_nodes(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> > > +				       struct shrink_control *sc)
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	list_lru_walk_node(&workingset_shadow_nodes, sc->nid,
> > > +			   shadow_lru_isolate, &nr_reclaimed, &sc->nr_to_scan);
> > > +
> > > +	return nr_reclaimed;
> > 
> > list_lru_walk_node() returns the number of reclaimed objects (i.e.
> > the number of objects that returned LRU_REMOVED/LRU_REMOVED_RETRY
> > from the ->isolate callback). You don't need to count nr_reclaimed
> > yourself.
> 
> Good catch, this is a leftover from before LRU_REMOVED_RETRY.  Removed
> the ad-hoc counter altogether.
> 
> > > +static struct shrinker workingset_shadow_shrinker = {
> > > +	.count_objects = count_shadow_nodes,
> > > +	.scan_objects = scan_shadow_nodes,
> > > +	.seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS * 4,
> > > +	.flags = SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE,
> > > +};
> > 
> > Can you add a comment explaining how you calculated the .seeks
> > value? It's important to document the weighings/importance
> > we give to slab reclaim so we can determine if it's actually
> > acheiving the desired balance under different loads...
> 
> This is not an exact science, to say the least.
> 
> The shadow entries are mostly self-regulated, so I don't want the
> shrinker to interfere while the machine is just regularly trimming
> caches during normal operation.
> 
> It should only kick in when either a) reclaim is picking up and the
> scan-to-reclaim ratio increases due to mapped pages, dirty cache,
> swapping etc. or b) the number of objects compared to LRU pages
> becomes excessive.
> 
> I think that is what most shrinkers with an elevated seeks value want,
> but this translates very awkwardly (and not completely) to the current
> cost model, and we should probably rework that interface.
> 
> "Seeks" currently encodes 3 ratios:
> 
>   1. the cost of creating an object vs. a page
> 
>   2. the expected number of objects vs. pages
> 
>   3. the cost of reclaiming an object vs. a page
> 
> but they are not necessarily correlated.  How I would like to
> configure the shadow shrinker instead is:
> 
>   o scan objects when reclaim efficiency is down to 75%, because they
>     are more valuable than use-once cache but less than workingset
> 

Sorry if it is another topic.
Just out of curiosity. Why do you set it to 75%?
The why I ask is it's really needed thing for volatile range, which
want to discard volatile pages more than use-once but less than
working set.

In recent version, I just used (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) to catch up
reclaim efficiency because we already have used it for noticing reclaim
trouble several places but not hard tested so I'm not sure it's better
than #reclaimed_pages/#scanned_page.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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