| Message ID | 20231220012123.2787-3-cuibixuan@vivo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Make memory reclamation measurable | expand |
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 17:21:23 -0800 Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@vivo.com> wrote: > diff --git a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h > index b99cd28c9815..02868bdc5999 100644 > --- a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h > +++ b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h > @@ -395,7 +395,24 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_write_folio, > show_reclaim_flags(__entry->reclaim_flags)) > ); > > -TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive, > +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start, > + > + TP_PROTO(int nid), > + > + TP_ARGS(nid), > + > + TP_STRUCT__entry( > + __field(int, nid) > + ), > + > + TP_fast_assign( > + __entry->nid = nid; > + ), > + > + TP_printk("nid=%d", __entry->nid) > +); > + > +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_end, > > TP_PROTO(int nid, > unsigned long nr_scanned, unsigned long nr_reclaimed, > @@ -446,7 +463,24 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive, > show_reclaim_flags(__entry->reclaim_flags)) > ); > > -TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active, > +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_start, > + > + TP_PROTO(int nid), > + > + TP_ARGS(nid), > + > + TP_STRUCT__entry( > + __field(int, nid) > + ), > + > + TP_fast_assign( > + __entry->nid = nid; > + ), > + > + TP_printk("nid=%d", __entry->nid) > +); > + > +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_end, > These two events are identical, please use DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS and DEFINE_EVENT macros: DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_start_template, TP_PROTO(int nid), TP_ARGS(nid), TP_STRUCT__entry( __field(int, nid) ), TP_fast_assign( __entry->nid = nid; ), TP_printk("nid=%d", __entry->nid) ); DEFINE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_start_template, mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start, TP_PROTO(int nid), TP_ARGS(nid) ); DEFINE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_start_template, mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_end, TP_PROTO(int nid), TP_ARGS(nid) ); This saves a bit of memory footprint when doing so. -- Steve
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:22 PM Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@vivo.com> wrote: > > From: cuibixuan <cuibixuan@vivo.com> > > Add a new event to calculate the shrink_inactive_list()/shrink_active_list() > execution time. > > Example of output: > kswapd0-103 [007] ..... 1098.353020: mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_start: nid=0 > kswapd0-103 [007] ..... 1098.353040: mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_end: nid=0 nr_taken=32 nr_active=0 nr_deactivated=32 nr_referenced=0 priority=6 flags=RECLAIM_WB_FILE|RECLAIM_WB_ASYNC > kswapd0-103 [007] ..... 1098.353040: mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start: nid=0 > kswapd0-103 [007] ..... 1098.353094: mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_end: nid=0 nr_scanned=32 nr_reclaimed=0 nr_dirty=0 nr_writeback=0 nr_congested=0 nr_immediate=0 nr_activate_anon=0 nr_activate_file=0 nr_ref_keep=32 nr_unmap_fail=0 priority=6 flags=RECLAIM_WB_ANON|RECLAIM_WB_ASYNC > kswapd0-103 [007] ..... 1098.353094: mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start: nid=0 > kswapd0-103 [007] ..... 1098.353162: mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_end: nid=0 nr_scanned=32 nr_reclaimed=21 nr_dirty=0 nr_writeback=0 nr_congested=0 nr_immediate=0 nr_activate_anon=0 nr_activate_file=0 nr_ref_keep=11 nr_unmap_fail=0 priority=6 flags=RECLAIM_WB_FILE|RECLAIM_WB_ASYNC > > Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@vivo.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > v4: Add Reviewed-by and Changlog to every patch. Where did Andrew provide his Reviewed-by? > v2: Modify trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive() in evict_folios() at the same time to fix build error. The reason v3 was NAK'ed was not mentioned or fixed in v4. So NAK again.
在 2023/12/21 1:54, Yu Zhao 写道: >> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui<cuibixuan@vivo.com> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton<akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> --- >> v4: Add Reviewed-by and Changlog to every patch. > Where did Andrew provide his Reviewed-by?Hi, I just want to add Reviewed-by to my patch to thank the reveiw of Steven and Andrew.:-) > >> v2: Modify trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive() in evict_folios() at the same time to fix build error. > The reason v3 was NAK'ed was not mentioned or fixed in v4. > > So NAK again. The build error pointed out by Andrew has been fixed in [mm: vmscan: add new event to trace shrink lru]: @@ -4524,9 +4528,10 @@ static int evict_folios(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swap if (list_empty(&list)) return scanned; retry: + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start(pgdat->node_id); reclaimed = shrink_folio_list(&list, pgdat, sc, &stat, false); sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaimed; - trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive(pgdat->node_id, + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_end(pgdat->node_id, scanned, reclaimed, &stat, sc->priority, type ? LRU_INACTIVE_FILE : LRU_INACTIVE_ANON); Are there any other reasons for NAK? And thank you for your review. Thanks Bixuan Cui
diff --git a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h index b99cd28c9815..02868bdc5999 100644 --- a/include/trace/events/vmscan.h +++ b/include/trace/events/vmscan.h @@ -395,7 +395,24 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_write_folio, show_reclaim_flags(__entry->reclaim_flags)) ); -TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive, +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start, + + TP_PROTO(int nid), + + TP_ARGS(nid), + + TP_STRUCT__entry( + __field(int, nid) + ), + + TP_fast_assign( + __entry->nid = nid; + ), + + TP_printk("nid=%d", __entry->nid) +); + +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_end, TP_PROTO(int nid, unsigned long nr_scanned, unsigned long nr_reclaimed, @@ -446,7 +463,24 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive, show_reclaim_flags(__entry->reclaim_flags)) ); -TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active, +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_start, + + TP_PROTO(int nid), + + TP_ARGS(nid), + + TP_STRUCT__entry( + __field(int, nid) + ), + + TP_fast_assign( + __entry->nid = nid; + ), + + TP_printk("nid=%d", __entry->nid) +); + +TRACE_EVENT(mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_end, TP_PROTO(int nid, unsigned long nr_taken, unsigned long nr_active, unsigned long nr_deactivated, diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 4e3b835c6b4a..a44d9624d60f 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -1906,6 +1906,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec); bool stalled = false; + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start(pgdat->node_id); + while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(pgdat, file, sc))) { if (stalled) return 0; @@ -1990,7 +1992,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, if (file) sc->nr.file_taken += nr_taken; - trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive(pgdat->node_id, + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_end(pgdat->node_id, nr_scanned, nr_reclaimed, &stat, sc->priority, file); return nr_reclaimed; } @@ -2028,6 +2030,8 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, int file = is_file_lru(lru); struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec); + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_start(pgdat->node_id); + lru_add_drain(); spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock); @@ -2107,7 +2111,7 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, lru_note_cost(lruvec, file, 0, nr_rotated); mem_cgroup_uncharge_list(&l_active); free_unref_page_list(&l_active); - trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active(pgdat->node_id, nr_taken, nr_activate, + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_active_end(pgdat->node_id, nr_taken, nr_activate, nr_deactivate, nr_rotated, sc->priority, file); } @@ -4524,9 +4528,10 @@ static int evict_folios(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swap if (list_empty(&list)) return scanned; retry: + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_start(pgdat->node_id); reclaimed = shrink_folio_list(&list, pgdat, sc, &stat, false); sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaimed; - trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive(pgdat->node_id, + trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive_end(pgdat->node_id, scanned, reclaimed, &stat, sc->priority, type ? LRU_INACTIVE_FILE : LRU_INACTIVE_ANON);