Re: [Devel] [PATCH v11 00/15] kmemcg shrinkers
From: Vladimir Davydov
Date: Fri Nov 01 2013 - 09:27:10 EST
I've run kernbench in a first-level memory cgroup to prove there is no
performance degradation due to the series, and here are the results.
HW: 2 socket x 6 core x 2 HT (2 NUMA nodes, 24 logical CPUs in total),
24 GB RAM (12+12)
Test case: time make -j48 vmlinux
Legend:
base - 3.12.0-rc6
patched - 3.12.0-rc6 + patchset
1) To compute the overhead of making s_inode_lru and s_dentry_lru lists
per-memcg, the test was run in a first-level memory cgroup with the
following parameters:
memory.limit_in_bytes=-1
memory.kmem_limit_in_bytes=2147483648
[the kmem limit is set in order to activate kmem accounting in memcg,
but since it is high enough to accommodate all kernel objects created
during the test, the reclaimer is never called]
* base
Elapsed time: 314.7 +- 0.9 sec
User time: 5103.5 +- 11.0 sec
System time: 540.7 +- 1.0 sec
CPU usage: 1793.2 +- 6.1 %
* patched
Elapsed time: 313.6 +- 1.4 sec
User time: 5096.4 +- 10.8 sec
System time: 538.9 +- 1.6 sec
CPU usage: 1796.2 +- 9.4 %
From the results above, one may conclude there is practically no
overhead of making the inode and dentry lists per-memcg.
2) To compute the impact of the series on the memory reclaimer, the test
was run in a first-level cgroup with the following parameters:
memory.limit_in_bytes=2147483648
memory.kmem_limit_in_bytes=2147483648
[48 compilation threads competing for 2GB of RAM create memory pressure
high enough to trigger memory reclaimer]
* base
Elapsed time: 705.2 +- 104.2 sec
User time: 4489.1 +- 48.2 sec
System time: 494.4 +- 4.9 sec
CPU usage: 724.0 +- 122.3 %
* patched
Elapsed time: 659.6 +- 98.4 sec (-45.6 sec / -6.4 % vs base)
User time: 4506.5 +- 52.7 sec (+17.4 sec / +0.4 % vs base)
System time: 494.7 +- 7.8 sec (+0.3 sec / +0.0 % vs base)
CPU usage: 774.7 +- 115.6 % (+50.7 % / +7.0 % bs base)
It seems that shrinking icache/dcache along with page caches resulted in
slight improvement in CPU utilization and overall performance (elapsed
time). This is predictable, because the kernel w/o the patchset applied
in fact does not shrink icache/dcache at all under memcg pressure
keeping them in memory during all the test run. In total, this can
result in up to 300 MB of memory wasted. In contrary, the patched kernel
tries to reclaim kernel objects along with user pages freeing space for
the effective working set.
Thus, I guess the overhead introduced by the series is reasonable.
Thanks.
On 10/24/2013 04:04 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
This patchset implements targeted shrinking for memcg when kmem limits are
present. So far, we've been accounting kernel objects but failing allocations
when short of memory. This is because our only option would be to call the
global shrinker, depleting objects from all caches and breaking isolation.
The main idea is to associate per-memcg lists with each of the LRUs. The main
LRU still provides a single entry point and when adding or removing an element
from the LRU, we use the page information to figure out which memcg it belongs
to and relay it to the right list.
The bulk of the code is written by Glauber Costa. The only change I introduced
myself in this iteration is reworking per-memcg LRU lists. Instead of extending
the existing list_lru structure, which seems to be neat as is, I introduced a
new one, memcg_list_lru, which aggregates list_lru objects for each kmem-active
memcg and keeps them uptodate as memcgs are created/destroyed. I hope this
simplified call paths and made the code easier to read.
The patchset is based on top of Linux 3.12-rc6.
Any comments and proposals are appreciated.
== Known issues ==
* In case kmem limit is less than sum mem limit, reaching memcg kmem limit
will result in an attempt to shrink all memcg slabs (see
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_kmem()). Although this is better than simply failing
allocation as it works now, it is still to be improved.
* Since FS shrinkers can't be executed on __GFP_FS allocations, such
allocations will fail if memcg kmem limit is less than sum mem limit and the
memcg kmem usage is close to its limit. Glauber proposed to schedule a
worker which would shrink kmem in the background on such allocations.
However, this approach does not eliminate failures completely, it just makes
them rarer. I'm thinking on implementing soft limits for memcg kmem so that
striking the soft limit will trigger the reclaimer, but won't fail the
allocation. I would appreciate any other proposals on how this can be fixed.
* Only dcache and icache are reclaimed on memcg pressure. Other FS objects are
left for global pressure only. However, it should not be a serious problem
to make them reclaimable too by passing on memcg to the FS-layer and letting
each FS decide if its internal objects are shrinkable on memcg pressure.
== Changes from v10 ==
* Rework per-memcg list_lru infrastructure.
Previous iteration (with full changelog) can be found here:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg66632.html
Glauber Costa (12):
memcg: make cache index determination more robust
memcg: consolidate callers of memcg_cache_id
vmscan: also shrink slab in memcg pressure
memcg: move initialization to memcg creation
memcg: move stop and resume accounting functions
memcg: per-memcg kmem shrinking
memcg: scan cache objects hierarchically
vmscan: take at least one pass with shrinkers
memcg: allow kmem limit to be resized down
vmpressure: in-kernel notifications
memcg: reap dead memcgs upon global memory pressure
memcg: flush memcg items upon memcg destruction
Vladimir Davydov (3):
memcg,list_lru: add per-memcg LRU list infrastructure
memcg,list_lru: add function walking over all lists of a per-memcg
LRU
super: make icache, dcache shrinkers memcg-aware
fs/dcache.c | 25 +-
fs/inode.c | 16 +-
fs/internal.h | 9 +-
fs/super.c | 47 +--
include/linux/fs.h | 4 +-
include/linux/list_lru.h | 77 +++++
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 23 ++
include/linux/shrinker.h | 6 +-
include/linux/swap.h | 2 +
include/linux/vmpressure.h | 5 +
mm/memcontrol.c | 704 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
mm/vmpressure.c | 53 +++-
mm/vmscan.c | 178 +++++++++--
13 files changed, 1014 insertions(+), 135 deletions(-)
--
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/