On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:37:34PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index a384339bf718..2cf6b04a4e0c 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -339,6 +339,26 @@ shrink_slab_node(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl, 
> struct shrinker *shrinker,
>       return freed;
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned long
> +run_shrinker(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl, struct shrinker *shrinker,
> +          unsigned long nr_pages_scanned, unsigned long lru_pages)
> +{
> +     unsigned long freed = 0;
> +
> +     if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE)) {
> +             shrinkctl->nid = 0;
> +             return shrink_slab_node(shrinkctl, shrinker,
> +                                     nr_pages_scanned, lru_pages);
> +     }
> +
> +     for_each_node_mask(shrinkctl->nid, shrinkctl->nodes_to_scan) {
> +             if (node_online(shrinkctl->nid))
> +                     freed += shrink_slab_node(shrinkctl, shrinker,
> +                                               nr_pages_scanned, lru_pages);
> +     }
> +     return freed;
> +}

The slab shrinking logic accumulates the lru pages, as well as the
nodes_to_scan mask, when going over the zones, only to go over the
zones here again using the accumulated node information.  Why not just
invoke the thing per-zone instead in the first place?  Kswapd already
does that (although it could probably work with the per-zone lru_pages
and nr_scanned deltas) and direct reclaim should as well.  It would
simplify the existing code as well as your series a lot.

> +             /*
> +              * For memcg-aware shrinkers iterate over the target memcg
> +              * hierarchy and run the shrinker on each kmem-active memcg
> +              * found in the hierarchy.
> +              */
> +             shrinkctl->memcg = shrinkctl->target_mem_cgroup;
> +             do {
> +                     if (!shrinkctl->memcg ||
> +                         memcg_kmem_is_active(shrinkctl->memcg))
> +                             freed += run_shrinker(shrinkctl, shrinker,
>                                               nr_pages_scanned, lru_pages);
> -
> -             }
> +             } while ((shrinkctl->memcg =
> +                       mem_cgroup_iter(shrinkctl->target_mem_cgroup,
> +                                       shrinkctl->memcg, NULL)) != NULL);

More symptoms of the above.  This hierarchy walk is duplicative and
potentially quite expensive.

> @@ -2381,6 +2414,7 @@ static bool shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, 
> struct scan_control *sc)
>       gfp_t orig_mask;
>       struct shrink_control shrink = {
>               .gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask,
> +             .target_mem_cgroup = sc->target_mem_cgroup,
>       };
>       enum zone_type requested_highidx = gfp_zone(sc->gfp_mask);
>       bool reclaimable = false;
> @@ -2400,18 +2434,22 @@ static bool shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, 
> struct scan_control *sc)
>                                       gfp_zone(sc->gfp_mask), sc->nodemask) {
>               if (!populated_zone(zone))
>                       continue;
> +
> +             if (global_reclaim(sc) &&
> +                 !cpuset_zone_allowed(zone, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HARDWALL))
> +                     continue;
> +
> +             lru_pages += global_reclaim(sc) ?
> +                             zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) :
> +                             mem_cgroup_zone_reclaimable_pages(zone,
> +                                             sc->target_mem_cgroup);
> +             node_set(zone_to_nid(zone), shrink.nodes_to_scan);

And yet another costly hierarchy walk.

The reclaim code walks zonelists according to a nodemask, and within
each zone it walks lruvecs according to the memcg hierarchy.  The
shrinkers are wrong in making up an ad-hoc concept of NUMA nodes that
otherwise does not exist anywhere in the VM.  Please integrate them
properly instead of adding more duplication on top.

Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to