From patchwork Mon Mar 16 10:39:55 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Yafang Shao X-Patchwork-Id: 11440111 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ACE92A for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:40:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5382071C for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:40:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Fs79amYV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730608AbgCPKkX (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:40:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-f66.google.com ([209.85.216.66]:51113 "EHLO mail-pj1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730497AbgCPKkX (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:40:23 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-f66.google.com with SMTP id o23so2331440pjp.0 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 03:40:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id; bh=a9gc0XHBJKY89zwnMCJORS3KUqDDhKLq7++ME1/DG/0=; b=Fs79amYVExQ3JwoMO+48+QYtAp0yVOdMTC4MWCHDfaomZeTMNgHklFvGZMdKhnBZk7 XvIdYWieMvFlEoygzK0W+3+i3YqcxIhAbJUn673ek1Bo9sEqvUWB/mGJ6yhZG/fXGZcE CLNQa5Zdpi39oRPnTMts9ykBhR2RNRBD/uCdMFvDrtQPI3MNM81kVmuQbFfAMW/43cL8 k84X+LzRIyIHLOi6MECaF4d1OagLl/LpiiSuMIDDHWSCOIugZsHP6j5RHQex+tTaKdx7 hhRPg6WN25MgreQ3K1wO1sATdEeb5/huCbGTAOVd8rZxZpmnFYCzdL3POsitpTx5bLo/ GPnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id; bh=a9gc0XHBJKY89zwnMCJORS3KUqDDhKLq7++ME1/DG/0=; b=D7L4aBtxYm/pKtshPVF7LuDvvEBKF0iFL207Hy8Mjsdc2kaUEFRFfKO+UshyZIeMVt gcdh5m8NIqHXH2emhlFgib5u7kFstqpHCn+zWgWNTYK4+WMHxk3UNkDo3SfRLNcEoVxi eGHMn7IZ70Q2cdMby43JviG6EGWcbi1W6MuVvhewxaIxpsSJ9q9m+s18yoqxR8NlYBJA eSCMKHkeEGM0eS7drjH9OeVcS7YWARN/gQr2JYINrivrw/cPJ9My2q2qu2UDI+UnVIuS ZsnF197I8anQYXuhjdCGfyWUSrzCpmpxY4E/Smvm2w16o7INPZEYegGQ6B3h40qNQltU voxw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0+M3P58dzWKFUttZbENVz1P72rs23MH6qJYKVjPhDWl+K9Ok/i SQVymxT6DAcGxHMWdu0AQg0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuHgzgFf4ysXkEpACvb/JyJiEUdrxXesacBq9QLcMooZl9/yrbMISAy+YAphT2lCdW7ecJgzQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:950f:: with SMTP id t15mr9236438pjo.133.1584355222000; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 03:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dev.localdomain ([203.100.54.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm19834276pjc.7.2020.03.16.03.40.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 03:40:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Yafang Shao To: dchinner@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, guro@fb.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, willy@infradead.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Yafang Shao Subject: [PATCH v6 0/3] protect page cache from freeing inode Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:39:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1584355198-10137-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On my server there're some running MEMCGs protected by memory.{min, low}, but I found the usage of these MEMCGs abruptly became very small, which were far less than the protect limit. It confused me and finally I found that was because of inode stealing. Once an inode is freed, all its belonging page caches will be dropped as well, no matter how may page caches it has. So if we intend to protect the page caches in a memcg, we must protect their host (the inode) first. Otherwise the memcg protection can be easily bypassed with freeing inode, especially if there're big files in this memcg. The inherent mismatch between memcg and inode is a trouble. One inode can be shared by different MEMCGs, but it is a very rare case. If an inode is shared, its belonging page caches may be charged to different MEMCGs. Currently there's no perfect solution to fix this kind of issue, but the inode majority-writer ownership switching can help it more or less. After this patch, it may take extra time to skip these inodes when workload outside of a memcg protected by memory.min or memory.low is trying to do page reclaim, especially if there're lots of inodes pinned by pagecache in this protected memcg. In order to measure the potential regressions, I constructed bellow test case on my server. My server is a machine with two nodes, and each of these nodes has 64GB memory. I created two memcgs, and memory.low of these memcgs are both set with 1G. Then I generated more than 500 thousand inodes in each of them, and pagacaches of these inodes are from 4K to 4M. IOW, there're totally more than 1 million xfs_inode in the memory and the total pagecache of them are nearly 128GB. Then I run a workload outside of these two protected memcgs. That workload is usemem in Mel's mmtests with a little modification to alloc almost all the memory and iterate only once. Bellow is the compared result of the Amean of elapsed time and sys%. 5.6.0-rc4 patched Amean syst-4 65.75 ( 0.00%) 68.08 * -3.54%* Amean elsp-4 32.14 ( 0.00%) 32.63 * -1.52%* Amean syst-7 67.47 ( 0.00%) 66.71 * 1.13%* Amean elsp-7 19.83 ( 0.00%) 18.41 * 7.16%* Amean syst-12 98.27 ( 0.00%) 99.29 * -1.04%* Amean elsp-12 15.60 ( 0.00%) 16.00 * -2.56%* Amean syst-21 174.69 ( 0.00%) 172.92 * 1.01%* Amean elsp-21 14.63 ( 0.00%) 14.75 * -0.82%* Amean syst-30 195.78 ( 0.00%) 205.90 * -5.17%* Amean elsp-30 12.42 ( 0.00%) 12.73 * -2.50%* Amean syst-40 249.85 ( 0.00%) 250.81 * -0.38%* Amean elsp-40 12.19 ( 0.00%) 12.25 * -0.49%* I did many times. Each time I run this test, I got different result. But the differece is not too big. Furthmore, this behavior only occurs when memory.min or memory.low is set, and the user already knows that memory.{min, low} can protect the pages at the cost of taking more CPU times, so small extra time is expected by the user. While if the workload trying to reclaim these protected inodes is inside of a protected memcg, then this workload will not be effected at all because memory.{min, low} doesn't take effect under this condition. - Changes against v5: Fix an error pointed by Matthew. - Changes against v4: Update with the test result to measure the potential regression. And rebase this patchset on 5.6.0-rc4. - Changes against v3: Fix the possible risk pointed by Johannes in another patchset [1]. Per discussion with Johannes in that mail thread, I found that the issue Johannes is trying to fix is different with the issue I'm trying to fix. That's why I update this patchset and post it again. This specific memcg protection issue should be addressed. - Changes against v2: 1. Seperates memcg patches from this patchset, suggested by Roman. 2. Improves code around the usage of for_each_mem_cgroup(), suggested by Dave 3. Use memcg_low_reclaim passed from scan_control, instead of introducing a new member in struct mem_cgroup. 4. Some other code improvement suggested by Dave. - Changes against v1: Use the memcg passed from the shrink_control, instead of getting it from inode itself, suggested by Dave. That could make the laying better. [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200211175507.178100-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org/ Yafang Shao (3): mm, list_lru: make memcg visible to lru walker isolation function mm, shrinker: make memcg low reclaim visible to lru walker isolation function inode: protect page cache from freeing inode fs/inode.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 18 +++++++++++ include/linux/shrinker.h | 3 ++ mm/list_lru.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++------------ mm/memcontrol.c | 15 --------- mm/vmscan.c | 27 +++++++++------- 6 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)