[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180719084802.GQ7193@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:48:02 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
"Wangkai (Kevin,C)" <wangkai86@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries
On Wed 18-07-18 12:17:24, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/16/2018 05:09 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 13-07-18 10:36:14, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > [...]
> >> By limiting the number of negative dentries in this case, internal
> >> slab fragmentation is reduced such that reclaim cost never gets out
> >> of control. While it appears to "fix" the symptoms, it doesn't
> >> address the underlying problem. It is a partial solution at best but
> >> at worst it's another opaque knob that nobody knows how or when to
> >> tune.
> > Would it help to put all the negative dentries into its own slab cache?
> >
> >> Very few microbenchmarks expose this internal slab fragmentation
> >> problem because they either don't run long enough, don't create
> >> memory pressure, or don't have access patterns that mix long and
> >> short term slab objects together in a way that causes slab
> >> fragmentation. Run some cold cache directory traversals (git
> >> status?) at the same time you are creating negative dentries so you
> >> create pinned partial pages in the slab cache and see how the
> >> behaviour changes....
> > Agreed! Slab fragmentation is a real problem we are seeing for quite
> > some time. We should try to address it rather than paper over it with
> > weird knobs.
>
> I am aware that you don't like the limit knob that control how many
> negative dentries are allowed as a percentage of total system memory. I
> got comments in the past about doing some kind of auto-tuning. How about
> consolidating the 2 knobs that I currently have in the patchset into a
> single one with 3 possible values, like:
>
> 0 - no limiting
> 1 - set soft limit to "a constant + 4 x max # of positive dentries" and
> warn if exceeded
> 2 - same limit but kill excess negative dentries after use.
>
> Does that kind of knob make more sense to you?
Not really. See the pagecache limit story in http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180719084538.GP7193@dhcp22.suse.cz
I might be overly sensitive but I got burnt a lot in the past. We should
strive to make the reclaim seamless without asking admins to do our job.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists