[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee1408cb15dbd2e979fe637e2ab91644f6190d0e.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 15:42:31 +0800
From: "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/vmscan: never demote for memcg reclaim"
On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 15:09 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> This reverts commit 3a235693d3930e1276c8d9cc0ca5807ef292cf0a.
>
> Its premise was that cgroup reclaim cares about freeing memory inside
> the cgroup, and demotion just moves them around within the cgroup
> limit. Hence, pages from toptier nodes should be reclaimed directly.
>
> However, with NUMA balancing now doing tier promotions, demotion is
> part of the page aging process. Global reclaim demotes the coldest
> toptier pages to secondary memory, where their life continues and from
> which they have a chance to get promoted back. Essentially, tiered
> memory systems have an LRU order that spans multiple nodes.
>
> When cgroup reclaims pages coming off the toptier directly, there can
> be colder pages on lower tier nodes that were demoted by global
> reclaim. This is an aging inversion, not unlike if cgroups were to
> reclaim directly from the active lists while there are inactive pages.
>
> Proactive reclaim is another factor. The goal of that it is to offload
> colder pages from expensive RAM to cheaper storage. When lower tier
> memory is available as an intermediate layer, we want offloading to
> take advantage of it instead of bypassing to storage.
>
> Revert the patch so that cgroups respect the LRU order spanning the
> memory hierarchy.
>
> Of note is a specific undercommit scenario, where all cgroup limits in
> the system add up to <= available toptier memory. In that case,
> shuffling pages out to lower tiers first to reclaim them from there is
> inefficient. This is something could be optimized/short-circuited
> later on (although care must be taken not to accidentally recreate the
> aging inversion). Let's ensure correctness first.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
This is also required by Tim's DRAM partition among cgroups in tiered
sytstem.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 9 ++-------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index c6918fff06e1..7a4090712177 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -528,13 +528,8 @@ static bool can_demote(int nid, struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> if (!numa_demotion_enabled)
> return false;
> - if (sc) {
> - if (sc->no_demotion)
> - return false;
> - /* It is pointless to do demotion in memcg reclaim */
> - if (cgroup_reclaim(sc))
> - return false;
> - }
> + if (sc && sc->no_demotion)
> + return false;
> if (next_demotion_node(nid) == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> return false;
>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists