Re: [PATCH] mm: thp: move deferred split queue to memcg's nodeinfo

[Yang Shi]

On 10/8/19 7:44 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 07-10-19 16:19:59, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 10/2/19 10:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 02-10-19 06:16:43, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > > The commit 87eaceb3faa59b9b4d940ec9554ce251325d83fe ("mm: thp: make
> > > > > deferred split shrinker memcg aware") makes deferred split queue per
> > > > > memcg to resolve memcg pre-mature OOM problem.  But, all nodes end up
> > > > > sharing the same queue instead of one queue per-node before the commit.
> > > > > It is not a big deal for memcg limit reclaim, but it may cause global
> > > > > kswapd shrink THPs from a different node.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, 0-day testing reported -19.6% regression of stress-ng's madvise
> > > > > test [1].  I didn't see that much regression on my test box (24 threads,
> > > > > 48GB memory, 2 nodes), with the same test (stress-ng --timeout 1
> > > > > --metrics-brief --sequential 72  --class vm --exclude spawn,exec), I saw
> > > > > average -3% (run the same test 10 times then calculate the average since
> > > > > the test itself may have most 15% variation according to my test)
> > > > > regression sometimes (not every time, sometimes I didn't see regression
> > > > > at all).
> > > > >
> > > > > This might be caused by deferred split queue lock contention.  With some
> > > > > configuration (i.e. just one root memcg) the lock contention my be worse
> > > > > than before (given 2 nodes, two locks are reduced to one lock).
> > > > >
> > > > > So, moving deferred split queue to memcg's nodeinfo to make it NUMA
> > > > > aware again.
> > > > >
> > > > > With this change stress-ng's madvise test shows average 4% improvement
> > > > > sometimes and I didn't see degradation anymore.
> > > > My concern about this getting more and more complex
> > > > (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191002084014.GH15624@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) holds
> > > > here even more. Can we step back and reconsider the whole thing please?
> > > What about freeing immediately after split via workqueue and also have a
> > > synchronous version called before going oom? Maybe there would be also
> > > other things that would benefit from this scheme instead of traditional
> > > reclaim and shrinkers?
> > That is exactly what we have discussed some time ago.
> Yes, I've posted the patch:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190827125911.boya23eowxhqmopa@box
>
> But I still not sure that the approach is right. I expect it to trigger
> performance regressions. For system with pleanty of free memory, we will
> just pay split cost for nothing in many cases.

This is exactly what I'm concerned about as well.

>