[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181024151853.3edd9097400b0d52edff1f16@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:18:53 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:43:29 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> Spock reported that the commit 172b06c32b94 ("mm: slowly shrink slabs
> with a relatively small number of objects") leads to a regression on
> his setup: periodically the majority of the pagecache is evicted
> without an obvious reason, while before the change the amount of free
> memory was balancing around the watermark.
>
> The reason behind is that the mentioned above change created some
> minimal background pressure on the inode cache. The problem is that
> if an inode is considered to be reclaimed, all belonging pagecache
> page are stripped, no matter how many of them are there. So, if a huge
> multi-gigabyte file is cached in the memory, and the goal is to
> reclaim only few slab objects (unused inodes), we still can eventually
> evict all gigabytes of the pagecache at once.
>
> The workload described by Spock has few large non-mapped files in the
> pagecache, so it's especially noticeable.
>
> To solve the problem let's postpone the reclaim of inodes, which have
> more than 1 attached page. Let's wait until the pagecache pages will
> be evicted naturally by scanning the corresponding LRU lists, and only
> then reclaim the inode structure.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -730,8 +730,11 @@ static enum lru_status inode_lru_isolate(struct list_head *item,
> return LRU_REMOVED;
> }
>
> - /* recently referenced inodes get one more pass */
> - if (inode->i_state & I_REFERENCED) {
> + /*
> + * Recently referenced inodes and inodes with many attached pages
> + * get one more pass.
> + */
> + if (inode->i_state & I_REFERENCED || inode->i_data.nrpages > 1) {
> inode->i_state &= ~I_REFERENCED;
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> return LRU_ROTATE;
hm, why "1"?
I guess one could argue that this will encompass long symlinks, but I
just made that up to make "1" appear more justifiable ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists