lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 9/9] mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:03:58PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 06:17:37PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:05:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:10:43PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > + /* Only shadow entries in there, keep track of this node */
> > > > + if (!(node->count & RADIX_TREE_COUNT_MASK) &&
> > > > + list_empty(&node->private_list)) {
> > > > + node->private_data = mapping;
> > > > + list_lru_add(&workingset_shadow_nodes, &node->private_list);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > You can't do this list_empty(&node->private_list) check safely
> > > externally to the list_lru code - only time that entry can be
> > > checked safely is under the LRU list locks. This is the reason that
> > > list_lru_add/list_lru_del return a boolean to indicate is the object
> > > was added/removed from the list - they do this list_empty() check
> > > internally. i.e. the correct, safe way to do conditionally update
> > > state iff the object was added to the LRU is:
> > >
> > > if (!(node->count & RADIX_TREE_COUNT_MASK)) {
> > > if (list_lru_add(&workingset_shadow_nodes, &node->private_list))
> > > node->private_data = mapping;
> > > }
> > >
> > > > + radix_tree_replace_slot(slot, page);
> > > > + mapping->nrpages++;
> > > > + if (node) {
> > > > + node->count++;
> > > > + /* Installed page, can't be shadow-only anymore */
> > > > + if (!list_empty(&node->private_list))
> > > > + list_lru_del(&workingset_shadow_nodes,
> > > > + &node->private_list);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Same issue here:
> > >
> > > if (node) {
> > > node->count++;
> > > list_lru_del(&workingset_shadow_nodes, &node->private_list);
> > > }
> >
> > All modifications to node->private_list happen under
> > mapping->tree_lock, and modifications of a neighboring link should not
> > affect the outcome of the list_empty(), so I don't think the lru lock
> > is necessary.
>
> Can you please add that as a comment somewhere explaining why it is
> safe to do this?

Absolutely.

> > > > + case LRU_REMOVED_RETRY:
> > > > if (--nlru->nr_items == 0)
> > > > node_clear(nid, lru->active_nodes);
> > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(nlru->nr_items < 0);
> > > > isolated++;
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If the lru lock has been dropped, our list
> > > > + * traversal is now invalid and so we have to
> > > > + * restart from scratch.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (ret == LRU_REMOVED_RETRY)
> > > > + goto restart;
> > > > break;
> > > > case LRU_ROTATE:
> > > > list_move_tail(item, &nlru->list);
> > >
> > > I think that we need to assert that the list lru lock is correctly
> > > held here on return with LRU_REMOVED_RETRY. i.e.
> > >
> > > case LRU_REMOVED_RETRY:
> > > assert_spin_locked(&nlru->lock);
> > > case LRU_REMOVED:
> >
> > Ah, good idea. How about adding it to LRU_RETRY as well?
>
> Yup, good idea.

Ok, will do.

> > > > +static struct shrinker workingset_shadow_shrinker = {
> > > > + .count_objects = count_shadow_nodes,
> > > > + .scan_objects = scan_shadow_nodes,
> > > > + .seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS * 4,
> > > > + .flags = SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE,
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Can you add a comment explaining how you calculated the .seeks
> > > value? It's important to document the weighings/importance
> > > we give to slab reclaim so we can determine if it's actually
> > > acheiving the desired balance under different loads...
> >
> > This is not an exact science, to say the least.
>
> I know, that's why I asked it be documented rather than be something
> kept in your head.
>
> > The shadow entries are mostly self-regulated, so I don't want the
> > shrinker to interfere while the machine is just regularly trimming
> > caches during normal operation.
> >
> > It should only kick in when either a) reclaim is picking up and the
> > scan-to-reclaim ratio increases due to mapped pages, dirty cache,
> > swapping etc. or b) the number of objects compared to LRU pages
> > becomes excessive.
> >
> > I think that is what most shrinkers with an elevated seeks value want,
> > but this translates very awkwardly (and not completely) to the current
> > cost model, and we should probably rework that interface.
> >
> > "Seeks" currently encodes 3 ratios:
> >
> > 1. the cost of creating an object vs. a page
> >
> > 2. the expected number of objects vs. pages
>
> It doesn't encode that at all. If it did, then the default value
> wouldn't be "2".
>
> > 3. the cost of reclaiming an object vs. a page
>
> Which, when you consider #3 in conjunction with #1, the actual
> intended meaning of .seeks is "the cost of replacing this object in
> the cache compared to the cost of replacing a page cache page."

But what it actually seems to do is translate scan rate from LRU pages
to scan rate in another object pool. The actual replacement cost
varies based on hotness of each set, an in-use object is more
expensive to replace than a cold page and vice versa, the dentry and
inode shrinkers reflect this by rotating hot objects and refusing to
actually reclaim items while they are in active use.

So I am having a hard time deriving a meaningful value out of this
definition for my usecase because I want to push back objects based on
reclaim efficiency (scan rate vs. reclaim rate). The other shrinkers
with non-standard seek settings reek of magic number as well, which
suggests I am not alone with this.

I wonder if we can come up with a better interface that allows both
traditional cache shrinkers with their own aging, as well as object
pools that want to push back based on reclaim efficiency.

> > but they are not necessarily correlated. How I would like to
> > configure the shadow shrinker instead is:
> >
> > o scan objects when reclaim efficiency is down to 75%, because they
> > are more valuable than use-once cache but less than workingset
> >
> > o scan objects when the ratio between them and the number of pages
> > exceeds 1/32 (one shadow entry for each resident page, up to 64
> > entries per shrinkable object, assume 50% packing for robustness)
> >
> > o as the expected balance between objects and lru pages is 1:32,
> > reclaim one object for every 32 reclaimed LRU pages, instead of
> > assuming that number of scanned pages corresponds meaningfully to
> > number of objects to scan.
>
> You're assuming that every radix tree node has a full population of
> pages. This only occurs on sequential read and write workloads, and
> so isn't going tobe true for things like mapped executables or any
> semi-randomly accessed data set...

No, I'm assuming 50% population on average for that reason. I don't
know how else I could assign a fixed value to a variable object.

> > "4" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
>
> Right, but you still haven't explained how you came to the value of
> "4"....

It's a complete magic number. The tests I ran suggested lower numbers
throw out shadow entries prematurely, whereas higher numbers thrash
the working set while there are plenty radix tree nodes present.

> > It would be great if we could eliminate the reclaim cost assumption by
> > turning the nr_to_scan into a nr_to_reclaim, and then set the other
> > two ratios independently.
>
> That doesn't work for caches that are full of objects that can't (or
> won't) be reclaimed immediately. The CPU cost of repeatedly scanning
> to find N reclaimable objects when you have millions of objects in
> the cache is prohibitive.

That is true.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-21 07:41    [W:0.219 / U:1.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site