Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1574887

Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on underflow

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon 06-02-17 20:05:21, vinayak menon wrote:
[...]
> By scan I meant pages scanned by shrink_node_memcg/shrink_list
> which is passed as nr_scanned to vmpressure.  The calculation of
> pressure for tree is done at the end of vmpressure_win and it is
> that calculation which underflows. With this patch we want only the
> underflow to be avoided. But if we make (reclaimed = scanned) in
> vmpressure(), we change the vmpressure value even when there is no
> underflow right ?
>
> Rewriting the above e.g again.  First call to vmpressure with
> nr_scanned=1 and nr_reclaimed=512 (THP) Second call to vmpressure
> with nr_scanned=511 and nr_reclaimed=0 In the second call
> vmpr->tree_scanned becomes equal to vmpressure_win and the work
> is scheduled and it will calculate the vmpressure as 0 because
> tree_reclaimed = 512
>
> Similarly, if scanned is made equal to reclaimed in vmpressure()
> itself as you had suggested, First call to vmpressure with
> nr_scanned=1 and nr_reclaimed=512 (THP) And in vmpressure, we
> make nr_scanned=1 and nr_reclaimed=1 Second call to vmpressure
> with nr_scanned=511 and nr_reclaimed=0 In the second call
> vmpr->tree_scanned becomes equal to vmpressure_win and the work is
> scheduled and it will calculate the vmpressure as critical, because
> tree_reclaimed = 1
> 
> So it makes a difference, no?

OK, I see what you meant. Thanks for the clarification. And you are
right that normalizing nr_reclaimed to nr_scanned is a wrong thing to
do because that just doesn't aggregate the real work done. Normalizing
nr_scanned to nr_reclaimed should be better - or it would be even better
to count the scanned pages properly...

My main concern of doing this normalization late on aggregated numbers
is just weird. We are mixing numbers from parallel reclaimers and that
might just add more confusion. It is better to do the fixup as soon as
possible when we still have at least an idea that this was a THP page
scanned and reclaimed.

If we get back to your example it works as you expect just due to good
luck. Just make your nr_scanned=511 and nr_reclaimed=0 be a separate
event and you have your critical event. You have no real control over
when a new event is fired because parallel reclaimers are basically
unpredictable.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2017-02-06 13:30 +0100
  [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on underflow Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2017-02-06 13:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on  underflow Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-06 13:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on underflow vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 14:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on  underflow Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-06 14:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on underflow vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 15:40 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on  underflow Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-06 16:20 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on underflow vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 12:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH 2/2 RESEND] mm: vmpressure: fix sending wrong events on  underflow Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-07 13:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-06 14:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 16:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-07 09:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 12:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-07 13:20 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:20 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-07 16:00 +0100

csiph-web