Re: [RFC][PATCH][3/4] Add reclaim support

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:20:42 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> This patch reclaims pages from a container when the container limit is hit.
> The executable is oom'ed only when the container it is running in, is overlimit
> and we could not reclaim any pages belonging to the container
> 
> A parameter called pushback, controls how much memory is reclaimed when the
> limit is hit. It should be easy to expose this knob to user space, but
> currently it is hard coded to 20% of the total limit of the container.
> 
> isolate_lru_pages() has been modified to isolate pages belonging to a
> particular container, so that reclaim code will reclaim only container
> pages. For shared pages, reclaim does not unmap all mappings of the page,
> it only unmaps those mappings that are over their limit. This ensures
> that other containers are not penalized while reclaiming shared pages.
> 
> Parallel reclaim per container is not allowed. Each controller has a wait
> queue that ensures that only one task per control is running reclaim on
> that container.
> 
> 
> ...
>
> --- linux-2.6.20/include/linux/rmap.h~memctlr-reclaim-on-limit	2007-02-18 23:29:14.000000000 +0530
> +++ linux-2.6.20-balbir/include/linux/rmap.h	2007-02-18 23:29:14.000000000 +0530
> @@ -90,7 +90,15 @@ static inline void page_dup_rmap(struct 
>   * Called from mm/vmscan.c to handle paging out
>   */
>  int page_referenced(struct page *, int is_locked);
> -int try_to_unmap(struct page *, int ignore_refs);
> +int try_to_unmap(struct page *, int ignore_refs, void *container);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEMCTLR
> +bool page_in_container(struct page *page, struct zone *zone, void *container);
> +#else
> +static inline bool page_in_container(struct page *page, struct zone *zone, void *container)
> +{
> +	return true;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEMCTLR */
>  
>  /*
>   * Called from mm/filemap_xip.c to unmap empty zero page
> @@ -118,7 +126,8 @@ int page_mkclean(struct page *);
>  #define anon_vma_link(vma)	do {} while (0)
>  
>  #define page_referenced(page,l) TestClearPageReferenced(page)
> -#define try_to_unmap(page, refs) SWAP_FAIL
> +#define try_to_unmap(page, refs, container) SWAP_FAIL
> +#define page_in_container(page, zone, container)  true

I spy a compile error.

The static-inline version looks nicer.

>  static inline int page_mkclean(struct page *page)
>  {
> diff -puN include/linux/swap.h~memctlr-reclaim-on-limit include/linux/swap.h
> --- linux-2.6.20/include/linux/swap.h~memctlr-reclaim-on-limit	2007-02-18 23:29:14.000000000 +0530
> +++ linux-2.6.20-balbir/include/linux/swap.h	2007-02-18 23:29:14.000000000 +0530
> @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ extern void swap_setup(void);
>  /* linux/mm/vmscan.c */
>  extern unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **, gfp_t);
>  extern unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_pages);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEMCTLR
> +extern unsigned long memctlr_shrink_mapped_memory(unsigned long nr_pages,
> +							void *container);
> +#endif

Usually one doesn't need to put ifdefs around the declaration like this. 
If the function doesn't exist and nobody calls it, we're fine.  If someone
_does_ call it, we'll find out the error at link-time.

>  
> +/*
> + * checks if the mm's container and scan control passed container match, if
> + * so, is the container over it's limit. Returns 1 if the container is above
> + * its limit.
> + */
> +int memctlr_mm_overlimit(struct mm_struct *mm, void *sc_cont)
> +{
> +	struct container *cont;
> +	struct memctlr *mem;
> +	long usage, limit;
> +	int ret = 1;
> +
> +	if (!sc_cont)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	read_lock(&mm->container_lock);
> +	cont = mm->container;
> +
> +	/*
> + 	 * Regular reclaim, let it proceed as usual
> + 	 */
> +	if (!sc_cont)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	if (cont != sc_cont)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	mem = memctlr_from_cont(cont);
> +	usage = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.usage);
> +	limit = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.limit);
> +	if (limit && (usage > limit))
> +		ret = 1;
> +out:
> +	read_unlock(&mm->container_lock);
> +	return ret;
> +}

hm, I wonder how much additional lock traffic all this adds.

>  int memctlr_mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  {
>  	mm->counter = kmalloc(sizeof(struct res_counter), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -77,6 +125,46 @@ void memctlr_mm_assign_container(struct 
>  	write_unlock(&mm->container_lock);
>  }
>  
> +static int memctlr_check_and_reclaim(struct container *cont, long usage,
> +					long limit)
> +{
> +	unsigned long nr_pages = 0;
> +	unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> +	int retries = nr_retries;
> +	int ret = 1;
> +	struct memctlr *mem;
> +
> +	mem = memctlr_from_cont(cont);
> +	spin_lock(&mem->lock);
> +	while ((retries-- > 0) && limit && (usage > limit)) {
> +		if (mem->reclaim_in_progress) {
> +			spin_unlock(&mem->lock);
> +			wait_event(mem->wq, !mem->reclaim_in_progress);
> +			spin_lock(&mem->lock);
> +		} else {
> +			if (!nr_pages)
> +				nr_pages = (pushback * limit) / 100;
> +			mem->reclaim_in_progress = true;
> +			spin_unlock(&mem->lock);
> +			nr_reclaimed += memctlr_shrink_mapped_memory(nr_pages,
> +									cont);
> +			spin_lock(&mem->lock);
> +			mem->reclaim_in_progress = false;
> +			wake_up_all(&mem->wq);
> +		}
> +		/*
> + 		 * Resample usage and limit after reclaim
> + 		 */
> +		usage = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.usage);
> +		limit = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.limit);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&mem->lock);
> +
> +	if (limit && (usage > limit))
> +		ret = 0;
> +	return ret;
> +}

This all looks a bit racy.  And that's common in memory reclaim.  We just
have to ensure that when the race happens, we do reasonable things.

I suspect the locking in here could simply be removed.

> @@ -66,6 +67,9 @@ struct scan_control {
>  	int swappiness;
>  
>  	int all_unreclaimable;
> +
> +	void *container;		/* Used by containers for reclaiming */
> +					/* pages when the limit is exceeded  */
>  };

eww.  Why void*?

> +#ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEMCTLR
> +/*
> + * Try to free `nr_pages' of memory, system-wide, and return the number of
> + * freed pages.
> + * Modelled after shrink_all_memory()
> + */
> +unsigned long memctlr_shrink_mapped_memory(unsigned long nr_pages, void *container)

80-columns, please.

> +{
> +	unsigned long ret = 0;
> +	int pass;
> +	unsigned long nr_total_scanned = 0;
> +
> +	struct scan_control sc = {
> +		.gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
> +		.may_swap = 0,
> +		.swap_cluster_max = nr_pages,
> +		.may_writepage = 1,
> +		.swappiness = vm_swappiness,
> +		.container = container,
> +		.may_swap = 1,
> +		.swappiness = 100,
> +	};

swappiness got initialised twice.

> +	/*
> +	 * We try to shrink LRUs in 3 passes:
> +	 * 0 = Reclaim from inactive_list only
> +	 * 1 = Reclaim mapped (normal reclaim)
> +	 * 2 = 2nd pass of type 1
> +	 */
> +	for (pass = 0; pass < 3; pass++) {
> +		int prio;
> +
> +		for (prio = DEF_PRIORITY; prio >= 0; prio--) {
> +			unsigned long nr_to_scan = nr_pages - ret;
> +
> +			sc.nr_scanned = 0;
> +			ret += shrink_all_zones(nr_to_scan, prio,
> +						pass, 1, &sc);
> +			if (ret >= nr_pages)
> +				goto out;
> +
> +			nr_total_scanned += sc.nr_scanned;
> +			if (sc.nr_scanned && prio < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> +				congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ / 10);
> +		}
> +	}
> +out:
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +#endif

-
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/