Re: + mm-vmscan-add-mm_vmscan_inactive_list_is_low-tracepoint.patch added to -mm tree

From: Michal Hocko
Date: Fri Jan 13 2017 - 02:47:50 EST

On Fri 13-01-17 10:37:24, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:10:17AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 12-01-17 17:48:13, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:15:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 12-01-17 14:12:47, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:52:39PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed 11-01-17 08:52:50, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > @@ -2055,8 +2055,8 @@ static bool inactive_list_is_low(struct
> > > > > > > > if (!file && !total_swap_pages)
> > > > > > > > return false;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - inactive = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE);
> > > > > > > > - active = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE + LRU_ACTIVE);
> > > > > > > > + total_inactive = inactive = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE);
> > > > > > > > + total_active = active = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE + LRU_ACTIVE);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the decision of deactivating is based on eligible zone's LRU size,
> > > > > > > not whole zone so why should we need to get a trace of all zones's LRU?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Strictly speaking, the total_ counters are not necessary for making the
> > > > > > decision. I found reporting those numbers useful regardless because this
> > > > > > will give us also an information how large is the eligible portion of
> > > > > > the LRU list. We do not have any other tracepoint which would report
> > > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch doesn't say anything why it's useful. Could you tell why it's
> > > > > useful and inactive_list_is_low should be right place?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong, please. I don't want to bother you.
> > > > > I really don't want to add random stuff although it's tracepoint for
> > > > > debugging.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't sounds random to me. We simply do not have a full picture
> > > > on 32b systems without this information. Especially when memcgs are
> > > > involved and global numbers spread over different LRUs.
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate it?
> >
> > The problem with 32b systems is that you only can consider a part of the
> > LRU for the lowmem requests. While we have global counters to see how
> > much lowmem inactive/active pages we have, those get distributed to
> > memcg LRUs. And that distribution is impossible to guess. So my thinking
> > is that it can become a real head scratcher to realize why certain
> > active LRUs are aged while others are not. This was the case when I was
> > debugging the last issue which triggered all this. All of the sudden I
> > have seen many invocations when inactive and active were zero which
> > sounded weird, until I realized that those are memcg's lruvec which is
> > what total numbers told me...
>
> Hmm, it seems I miss something. AFAIU, what you need is just memcg
> identifier, not all lru size. If it isn't, please tell more detail
> usecase of all lru size in that particular tracepoint.

Having memcg id would be definitely helpful but that alone wouldn't tell
us how is the lowmem distributed. To be honest I really fail to see why
this bothers you all that much.

[...]
> > > > I am not sure I am following. Why is the additional parameter a problem?
> > >
> > > Well, to me, it's not a elegance. Is it? If we need such boolean variable
> > > to control show the trace, it means it's not a good place or think
> > > refactoring.
> >
> > But, even when you refactor the code there will be other callers of
> > inactive_list_is_low outside of shrink_active_list...
>
> Yes, that's why I said "it's okay if you love your version". However,
> we can do refactoring to remove "bool trace" and even, it makes code
> more readable, I believe.
>
> >From 06eb7201d781155a8dee7e72fbb8423ec8175223 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:13:36 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: refactoring inactive_list_is_low
>
> Recently, Michal Hocko added tracepoint into inactive_list_is_low
> for catching why VM decided to age the active list to know
> active/inacive balancing problem. With that, unfortunately, it
> added "bool trace" to inactlive_list_is_low to control some place
> should be prohibited tracing. It is not elegant to me so this patch
> try to clean it up.
>
> Normally, most inactive_list_is_low is used for deciding active list
> demotion but one site(i.e., get_scan_count) uses for other purpose
> which reclaim file LRU forcefully. Sites for deactivation calls it
> with shrink_active_list. It means inactive_list_is_low could be
> located in shrink_active_list.
>
> One more thing this patch does is to remove "ratio" in the tracepoint
> because we can get it by post processing in script via simple math.
>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/trace/events/vmscan.h | 9 +++-----
> mm/vmscan.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

this cleanup adds more lines than it removes. I think reporting the
ratio is helpful because it doesn't cost us anything while calculating
it by later is just a bit annoying.

> diff --git a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
> index 27e8a5c..406ea95 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h
> @@ -432,9 +432,9 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_inactive_list_is_low,
> TP_PROTO(int nid, int reclaim_idx,
> unsigned long total_inactive, unsigned long inactive,
> unsigned long total_active, unsigned long active,
> - unsigned long ratio, int file),
> + int file),
>
> - TP_ARGS(nid, reclaim_idx, total_inactive, inactive, total_active, active, ratio, file),
> + TP_ARGS(nid, reclaim_idx, total_inactive, inactive, total_active, active, file),
>
> TP_STRUCT__entry(
> __field(int, nid)
> @@ -443,7 +443,6 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_inactive_list_is_low,
> __field(unsigned long, inactive)
> __field(unsigned long, total_active)
> __field(unsigned long, active)
> - __field(unsigned long, ratio)
> __field(int, reclaim_flags)
> ),
>
> @@ -454,16 +453,14 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_inactive_list_is_low,
> __entry->inactive = inactive;
> __entry->total_active = total_active;
> __entry->active = active;
> - __entry->ratio = ratio;
> __entry->reclaim_flags = trace_shrink_flags(file) & RECLAIM_WB_LRU;
> ),
>
> - TP_printk("nid=%d reclaim_idx=%d total_inactive=%ld inactive=%ld total_active=%ld active=%ld ratio=%ld flags=%s",
> + TP_printk("nid=%d reclaim_idx=%d total_inactive=%ld inactive=%ld total_active=%ld active=%ld flags=%s",
> __entry->nid,
> __entry->reclaim_idx,
> __entry->total_inactive, __entry->inactive,
> __entry->total_active, __entry->active,
> - __entry->ratio,
> show_reclaim_flags(__entry->reclaim_flags))
> );
> #endif /* _TRACE_VMSCAN_H */
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 75cdf68..6890c21 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ unsigned long vm_total_pages;
>
> static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
> static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> +static bool inactive_list_is_low(bool file, unsigned long, unsigned long);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> static bool global_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
> @@ -1962,6 +1963,22 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> isolate_mode_t isolate_mode = 0;
> int file = is_file_lru(lru);
> struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
> + unsigned long inactive, active;
> + enum lru_list inactive_lru = file * LRU_FILE;
> + enum lru_list active_lru = file * LRU_FILE + LRU_ACTIVE;
> + bool deactivate;
> +
> + inactive = lruvec_lru_size_eligibe_zones(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE,
> + sc->reclaim_idx);
> + active = lruvec_lru_size_eligibe_zones(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE +
> + LRU_ACTIVE, sc->reclaim_idx);
> + deactivate = inactive_list_is_low(file, inactive, active);
> + trace_mm_vmscan_inactive_list_is_low(pgdat->node_id,
> + sc->reclaim_idx,
> + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, inactive_lru), inactive,
> + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, active_lru), active, file);
> + if (!deactivate)
> + return;
>
> lru_add_drain();
>
> @@ -2073,13 +2090,10 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> * 1TB 101 10GB
> * 10TB 320 32GB
> */
> -static bool inactive_list_is_low(struct lruvec *lruvec, bool file,
> - struct scan_control *sc, bool trace)
> +static bool inactive_list_is_low(bool file,
> + unsigned long inactive, unsigned long active)
> {
> unsigned long inactive_ratio;
> - unsigned long inactive, active;
> - enum lru_list inactive_lru = file * LRU_FILE;
> - enum lru_list active_lru = file * LRU_FILE + LRU_ACTIVE;
> unsigned long gb;
>
> /*
> @@ -2089,22 +2103,12 @@ static bool inactive_list_is_low(struct lruvec *lruvec, bool file,
> if (!file && !total_swap_pages)
> return false;
>
> - inactive = lruvec_lru_size_eligibe_zones(lruvec, inactive_lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
> - active = lruvec_lru_size_eligibe_zones(lruvec, active_lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
> -
> gb = (inactive + active) >> (30 - PAGE_SHIFT);
> if (gb)
> inactive_ratio = int_sqrt(10 * gb);
> else
> inactive_ratio = 1;
>
> - if (trace)
> - trace_mm_vmscan_inactive_list_is_low(lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_id,
> - sc->reclaim_idx,
> - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, inactive_lru), inactive,
> - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, active_lru), active,
> - inactive_ratio, file);
> -
> return inactive * inactive_ratio < active;
> }
>
> @@ -2112,8 +2116,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_list(enum lru_list lru, unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> if (is_active_lru(lru)) {
> - if (inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, is_file_lru(lru), sc, true))
> - shrink_active_list(nr_to_scan, lruvec, sc, lru);
> + shrink_active_list(nr_to_scan, lruvec, sc, lru);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -2153,6 +2156,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> enum lru_list lru;
> bool some_scanned;
> int pass;
> + unsigned long inactive, active;
>
> /*
> * If the zone or memcg is small, nr[l] can be 0. This
> @@ -2243,7 +2247,11 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> * lruvec even if it has plenty of old anonymous pages unless the
> * system is under heavy pressure.
> */
> - if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, true, sc, false) &&
> + inactive = lruvec_lru_size_eligibe_zones(lruvec,
> + LRU_FILE, sc->reclaim_idx);
> + active = lruvec_lru_size_eligibe_zones(lruvec,
> + LRU_FILE + LRU_ACTIVE, sc->reclaim_idx);
> + if (!inactive_list_is_low(true, inactive, active) &&
> lruvec_lru_size_eligibe_zones(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, sc->reclaim_idx) >> sc->priority) {
> scan_balance = SCAN_FILE;
> goto out;
> @@ -2468,9 +2476,7 @@ static void shrink_node_memcg(struct pglist_data *pgdat, struct mem_cgroup *memc
> * Even if we did not try to evict anon pages at all, we want to
> * rebalance the anon lru active/inactive ratio.
> */
> - if (inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, false, sc, true))
> - shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec,
> - sc, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
> + shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec, sc, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
> }
>
> /* Use reclaim/compaction for costly allocs or under memory pressure */
> @@ -3118,8 +3124,7 @@ static void age_active_anon(struct pglist_data *pgdat,
> do {
> struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(pgdat, memcg);
>
> - if (inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, false, sc, true))
> - shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec,
> + shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec,
> sc, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON);
>
> memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL);
> --
> 2.7.4

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs