Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: vmscan: scale number of pages reclaimed byreclaim/compaction based on failures"

[Johannes Hirte]

Am Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:24:49 +0000
schrieb Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>:

> Jiri Slaby reported the following:
> 
> 	(It's an effective revert of "mm: vmscan: scale number of
> pages reclaimed by reclaim/compaction based on failures".) Given
> kswapd had hours of runtime in ps/top output yesterday in the morning
> 	and after the revert it's now 2 minutes in sum for the last
> 24h, I would say, it's gone.
> 
> The intention of the patch in question was to compensate for the loss
> of lumpy reclaim. Part of the reason lumpy reclaim worked is because
> it aggressively reclaimed pages and this patch was meant to be a sane
> compromise.
> 
> When compaction fails, it gets deferred and both compaction and
> reclaim/compaction is deferred avoid excessive reclaim. However, since
> commit c6543459 (mm: remove __GFP_NO_KSWAPD), kswapd is woken up each
> time and continues reclaiming which was not taken into account when
> the patch was developed.
> 
> Attempts to address the problem ended up just changing the shape of
> the problem instead of fixing it. The release window gets closer and
> while a THP allocation failing is not a major problem, kswapd chewing
> up a lot of CPU is. This patch reverts "mm: vmscan: scale number of
> pages reclaimed by reclaim/compaction based on failures" and will be
> revisited in the future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |   25 -------------------------
>  1 file changed, 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 2624edc..e081ee8 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1760,28 +1760,6 @@ static bool in_reclaim_compaction(struct
> scan_control *sc) return false;
>  }
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_COMPACTION
> -/*
> - * If compaction is deferred for sc->order then scale the number of
> pages
> - * reclaimed based on the number of consecutive allocation failures
> - */
> -static unsigned long scale_for_compaction(unsigned long
> pages_for_compaction,
> -			struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control
> *sc) -{
> -	struct zone *zone = lruvec_zone(lruvec);
> -
> -	if (zone->compact_order_failed <= sc->order)
> -		pages_for_compaction <<= zone->compact_defer_shift;
> -	return pages_for_compaction;
> -}
> -#else
> -static unsigned long scale_for_compaction(unsigned long
> pages_for_compaction,
> -			struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control
> *sc) -{
> -	return pages_for_compaction;
> -}
> -#endif
> -
>  /*
>   * Reclaim/compaction is used for high-order allocation requests. It
> reclaims
>   * order-0 pages before compacting the zone.
> should_continue_reclaim() returns @@ -1829,9 +1807,6 @@ static inline
> bool should_continue_reclaim(struct lruvec *lruvec,
>  	 * inactive lists are large enough, continue reclaiming
>  	 */
>  	pages_for_compaction = (2UL << sc->order);
> -
> -	pages_for_compaction =
> scale_for_compaction(pages_for_compaction,
> -						    lruvec, sc);
>  	inactive_lru_pages = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE);
>  	if (nr_swap_pages > 0)
>  		inactive_lru_pages += get_lru_size(lruvec,
> LRU_INACTIVE_ANON); --

Even with this patch I see kswapd0 very often on top. Much more than
with kernel 3.6.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/