Date:	Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:07:56 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	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>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.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 10/10] mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check

On Mon,  3 Feb 2014 19:53:42 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> 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:
> 
> 1. There is no index available that would describe the reverse path
>    from the node up to the tree root, which is needed to perform a
>    deletion.  To solve this, encode in each node its offset inside the
>    parent.  This can be stored in the unused upper bits of the same
>    member that stores the node's height at no extra space cost.
> 
> 2. The number of shadow entries needs to be counted in addition to the
>    regular entries, to quickly detect when the node is ready to go to
>    the shadow node LRU list.  The current entry count is an unsigned
>    int but the maximum number of entries is 64, so a shadow counter
>    can easily be stored in the unused upper bits.
> 
> 3. Tree modification needs tree lock and tree root, which are located
>    in the address space, so store an address_space backpointer in the
>    node.  The parent pointer of the node is in a union with the 2-word
>    rcu_head, so the backpointer comes at no extra cost as well.
> 
> 4. The node needs to be linked to an LRU list, which requires a list
>    head inside the node.  This does increase the size of the node, but
>    it does not change the number of objects that fit into a slab page.

changelog forgot to mention that this reclaim is performed via a
shrinker...

How expensive is that list walk in scan_shadow_nodes()?  I assume in
the best case it will bale out after nr_to_scan iterations?

--
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