Re: [PATCH 2/3] Properly account for the number of page cachepages zone_reclaim() can reclaim

[Wu Fengguang]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 06:48:10PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:45:50PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:27:29PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:25:49AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:01:29PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > > On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_relcaim_mode that
> > > > > is a more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA
> > > > > distances for example, a zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean
> > > > > unmapped pages will be reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being met.
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is a heuristic that determines if the scan is worthwhile but the
> > > > > problem is that the heuristic is not being properly applied and is basically
> > > > > assuming zone_reclaim_mode is 1 if it is enabled.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch makes zone_reclaim() makes a better attempt at working out how
> > > > > many pages it might be able to reclaim given the current reclaim_mode. If it
> > > > > cannot clean pages, then NR_FILE_DIRTY number of pages are not candidates. If
> > > > > it cannot swap, then NR_FILE_MAPPED are not. This indirectly addresses tmpfs
> > > > > as those pages tend to be dirty as they are not cleaned by pdflush or sync.
> > > > 
> > > > No, tmpfs pages are not accounted in NR_FILE_DIRTY because of the
> > > > BDI_CAP_NO_ACCT_AND_WRITEBACK bits.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ok, that explains why the dirty page count was not as high as I was
> > > expecting. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > > > The ideal would be that the number of tmpfs pages would also be known
> > > > > and account for like NR_FILE_MAPPED as swap is required to discard them.
> > > > > A means of working this out quickly was not obvious but a comment is added
> > > > > noting the problem.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd rather prefer it be accounted separately than to muck up NR_FILE_MAPPED :)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Maybe I used a poor choice of words. What I meant was that the ideal would
> > > be we had a separate count for tmpfs pages. As tmpfs pages and mapped pages
> > > both have to be unmapped and potentially, they are "like" each other with
> > > respect to the zone_reclaim_mode and how it behaves. We would end up
> > > with something like
> > > 
> > > 	pagecache_reclaimable -= zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > > 	pagecache_reclaimable -= zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_TMPFS);
> > 
> > OK. But tmpfs pages may be mapped, so there will be double counting.
> > We must at least make sure pagecache_reclaimable won't get underflowed.
> 
> True. What vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch
> does might be better overall.

Yup.

> > (Or make another LRU list for tmpfs pages?)
> > 
> 
> Another LRU won't help the accounting and will changes too significantly
> how reclaim works.

OK.

> > > > > +	int pagecache_reclaimable;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * Work out how many page cache pages we can reclaim in this mode.
> > > > > +	 *
> > > > > +	 * NOTE: Ideally, tmpfs pages would be accounted as if they were
> > > > > +	 *       NR_FILE_MAPPED as swap is required to discard those
> > > > > +	 *       pages even when they are clean. However, there is no
> > > > > +	 *       way of quickly identifying the number of tmpfs pages
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > 
> > > > So can you remove the note on NR_FILE_MAPPED?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Why would I remove the note? I can alter the wording but the intention is
> > > to show we cannot count the number of tmpfs pages quickly and it would be
> > > nice if we could. Maybe this is clearer?
> > > 
> > > Note: Ideally tmpfs pages would be accounted for as NR_FILE_TMPFS or
> > > 	similar and treated similar to NR_FILE_MAPPED as both require
> > > 	unmapping from page tables and potentially swap to reclaim.
> > > 	However, no such counter exists.
> > 
> > That's better. Thanks.
> > 
> > > > > +	pagecache_reclaimable = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES);
> > > > > +	if (!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_WRITE))
> > > > > +		pagecache_reclaimable -= zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> > > > 
> > > > > +	if (!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP))
> > > > > +		pagecache_reclaimable -= zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED);
> > > > 
> > > > So the "if" can be removed because NR_FILE_MAPPED is not related to swapping?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It's partially related with respect to what zone_reclaim() is doing.
> > > Once something is mapped, we need RECLAIM_SWAP set on the
> > > zone_reclaim_mode to do anything useful with them.
> > 
> > You are referring to mapped anonymous/tmpfs pages? But I mean
> > NR_FILE_MAPPED pages won't goto swap when unmapped.
> > 
> 
> Not all of them. But some of them backed by real files will be discarded
> if clean at the next pass

Right.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> > > > >  	/*
> > > > >  	 * Zone reclaim reclaims unmapped file backed pages and
> > > > > @@ -2391,8 +2406,7 @@ int zone_reclaim(struct zone *zone, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> > > > >  	 * if less than a specified percentage of the zone is used by
> > > > >  	 * unmapped file backed pages.
> > > > >  	 */
> > > > > -	if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_PAGES) -
> > > > > -	    zone_page_state(zone, NR_FILE_MAPPED) <= zone->min_unmapped_pages
> > > > > +	if (pagecache_reclaimable <= zone->min_unmapped_pages
> > > > >  	    && zone_page_state(zone, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE)
> > > > >  			<= zone->min_slab_pages)
> > > > >  		return 0;
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 1.5.6.5
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Mel Gorman
> > > Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
> > > University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
> University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/