[PATCH v2 02/28] vmscan: take at least one pass with shrinkers

Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo.kim at lge.com
Wed Apr 10 02:51:16 UTC 2013


Hello, Dave.

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:30:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:05:05AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:29:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:55:47AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > lowmemkiller makes spare memory via killing a task.
> > > > 
> > > > Below is code from lowmem_shrink() in lowmemorykiller.c
> > > > 
> > > >         for (i = 0; i < array_size; i++) {
> > > >                 if (other_free < lowmem_minfree[i] &&
> > > >                     other_file < lowmem_minfree[i]) {
> > > >                         min_score_adj = lowmem_adj[i];
> > > >                         break;
> > > >                 }   
> > > >         } 
> > > 
> > > I don't think you understand what the current lowmemkiller shrinker
> > > hackery actually does.
> > > 
> > >         rem = global_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> > >                 global_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_FILE) +
> > >                 global_page_state(NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
> > >                 global_page_state(NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
> > >         if (sc->nr_to_scan <= 0 || min_score_adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX + 1) {
> > >                 lowmem_print(5, "lowmem_shrink %lu, %x, return %d\n",
> > >                              sc->nr_to_scan, sc->gfp_mask, rem);
> > >                 return rem;
> > >         }
> > > 
> > > So, when nr_to_scan == 0 (i.e. the count phase), the shrinker is
> > > going to return a count of active/inactive pages in the cache. That
> > > is almost always going to be non-zero, and almost always be > 1000
> > > because of the minimum working set needed to run the system.
> > > Even after applying the seek count adjustment, total_scan is almost
> > > always going to be larger than the shrinker default batch size of
> > > 128, and that means this shrinker will almost always run at least
> > > once per shrink_slab() call.
> > 
> > I don't think so.
> > Yes, lowmem_shrink() return number of (in)active lru pages
> > when nr_to_scan is 0. And in shrink_slab(), we divide it by lru_pages.
> > lru_pages can vary where shrink_slab() is called, anyway, perhaps this
> > logic makes total_scan below 128.
> 
> "perhaps"
> 
> 
> There is no "perhaps" here - there is *zero* guarantee of the
> behaviour you are claiming the lowmem killer shrinker is dependent
> on with the existing shrinker infrastructure. So, lets say we have:
> 
> 	nr_pages_scanned = 1000
> 	lru_pages = 100,000
> 
> Your shrinker is going to return 100,000 when nr_to_scan = 0. So,
> we have:
> 
> 	batch_size = SHRINK_BATCH = 128
> 	max_pass= 100,000
> 
> 	total_scan = shrinker->nr_in_batch = 0
> 	delta = 4 * 1000 / 32 = 128
> 	delta = 128 * 100,000 = 12,800,000
> 	delta = 12,800,000 / 100,001 = 127
> 	total_scan += delta = 127
> 
> Assuming the LRU pages count does not change(*), nr_pages_scanned is
> irrelevant and delta always comes in 1 count below the batch size,
> and the shrinker is not called. The remainder is then:
> 
> 	shrinker->nr_in_batch += total_scan = 127
> 
> (*) the lru page count will change, because reclaim and shrinkers
> run concurrently, and so we can't even make a simple contrived case
> where delta is consistently < batch_size here.
> 
> Anyway, the next time the shrinker is entered, we start with:
> 
> 	total_scan = shrinker->nr_in_batch = 127
> 	.....
> 	total_scan += delta = 254
> 
> 	<shrink once, total scan -= batch_size = 126>
> 
> 	shrinker->nr_in_batch += total_scan = 126
> 
> And so on for all the subsequent shrink_slab calls....
> 
> IOWs, this algorithm effectively causes the shrinker to be called
> 127 times out of 128 in this arbitrary scenario. It does not behave
> as you are assuming it to, and as such any code based on those
> assumptions is broken....

Thanks for good example. I got your point :)
But, my concern is not solved entirely, because this is not problem
just for lowmem killer and I can think counter example. And other drivers
can be suffered from this change.

I look at the code for "huge_zero_page_shrinker".
They return HPAGE_PMD_NR if there is shrikerable object.

I try to borrow your example for this case.

 	nr_pages_scanned = 1,000
 	lru_pages = 100,000
 	batch_size = SHRINK_BATCH = 128
 	max_pass= 512 (HPAGE_PMD_NR)
 
 	total_scan = shrinker->nr_in_batch = 0
 	delta = 4 * 1,000 / 2 = 2,000
 	delta = 2,000 * 512 = 1,024,000
 	delta = 1,024,000 / 100,001 = 10
 	total_scan += delta = 10

As you can see, before this patch, do_shrinker_shrink() for
"huge_zero_page_shrinker" is not called until we call shrink_slab() more
than 13 times. *Frequency* we call do_shrinker_shrink() actually is
largely different with before. With this patch, we actually call
do_shrinker_shrink() for "huge_zero_page_shrinker" 12 times more
than before. Can we be convinced that there will be no problem?

This is why I worry about this change.
Am I worried too much? :)

I show another scenario what I am thinking for lowmem killer.

In reality, 'nr_pages_scanned' reflect sc->priority.
You can see it get_scan_count() in vmscan.c

	size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
	scan = size >> sc->priority;

So, I try to re-construct your example with above assumption.

If sc->priority is DEF_PRIORITY (12)

 	nr_pages_scanned = 25 (100,000 / 4,096)
 	lru_pages = 100,000
 	batch_size = SHRINK_BATCH = 128
 	max_pass= 100,000
 
 	total_scan = shrinker->nr_in_batch = 0
 	delta = 4 * 25 / 32 = 3
 	delta = 3 * 100,000 = 300,000
 	delta = 300,000 / 100,001 = 3
 	total_scan += delta = 3

So, do_shrinker_shrink() is not called for lowmem killer until
we call shrink_slab() more than 40 times if sc->priority is DEF_PRIORITY.
So, AICT, if we don't have trouble too much in reclaiming memory, it will not
triggered frequently.

I like this patchset, and I think shrink_slab interface should be
re-worked. What I want to say is just that this patch is not trivial
change and should notify user to test it.
I want to say again, I don't want to become a stopper for this patchset :)

Please let me know what I am missing.

Thanks.

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david at fromorbit.com
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo at kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont at kvack.org"> email at kvack.org </a>


More information about the Containers mailing list