Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1448361 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-22 05:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-07-22 10:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] update sc->nr_reclaimed after each shrink_slab Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> - 2016-07-22 05:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] update sc->nr_reclaimed after each shrink_slab Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-07-22 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] update sc->nr_reclaimed after each shrink_slab Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-07-22 10:20 +0200
| From | Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 05:50 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] update sc->nr_reclaimed after each shrink_slab |
| Message-ID | <rXzDj-hE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
In !global_reclaim(sc) case, we should update sc->nr_reclaimed after each
shrink_slab in the loop. Because we need the correct sc->nr_reclaimed
value to see if we can break out.
Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 5 +++++
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index c4a2f45..47133c3 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2405,6 +2405,11 @@ static bool shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
memcg, sc->nr_scanned - scanned,
lru_pages);
+ if (!global_reclaim(sc) && reclaim_state) {
+ sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
+ reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
+ }
+
/* Record the group's reclaim efficiency */
vmpressure(sc->gfp_mask, memcg, false,
sc->nr_scanned - scanned,
--
1.7.7
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rXDnA-2NF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1448361 |
On Fri 22-07-16 11:43:30, Zhou Chengming wrote:
> In !global_reclaim(sc) case, we should update sc->nr_reclaimed after each
> shrink_slab in the loop. Because we need the correct sc->nr_reclaimed
> value to see if we can break out.
Does this actually change anything? Maybe I am missing something but
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages which is the main entry for the memcg
reclaim doesn't set reclaim_state. I don't remember why... Vladimir?
Have you observed any issues and this patch fixes it or this is just
motivated by the code inspection?
> Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 5 +++++
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index c4a2f45..47133c3 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2405,6 +2405,11 @@ static bool shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
> memcg, sc->nr_scanned - scanned,
> lru_pages);
>
> + if (!global_reclaim(sc) && reclaim_state) {
> + sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> + reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> + }
> +
> /* Record the group's reclaim efficiency */
> vmpressure(sc->gfp_mask, memcg, false,
> sc->nr_scanned - scanned,
> --
> 1.7.7
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rXDQC-3e4-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1448448 |
On Fri 22-07-16 11:12:59, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 09:49:13AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 22-07-16 11:43:30, Zhou Chengming wrote: > > > In !global_reclaim(sc) case, we should update sc->nr_reclaimed after each > > > shrink_slab in the loop. Because we need the correct sc->nr_reclaimed > > > value to see if we can break out. > > > > Does this actually change anything? Maybe I am missing something but > > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages which is the main entry for the memcg > > reclaim doesn't set reclaim_state. I don't remember why... Vladimir? > > We don't set reclaim_state on memcg reclaim, because there might be a > lot of unrelated slab objects freed from the interrupt context (e.g. > RCU freed) while we're doing memcg reclaim. Obviously, we don't want > them to contribute to nr_reclaimed. > > Link to the thread with the problem discussion: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142132698209680&w=2 Ohh, now I rememeber again. Thanks for the refresh ;) So the patch doesn't make any difference in the end. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web