xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages in direct

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:55:20 +0900
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110714150700.GC23587@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD.
References: <1310567487-15367-1-git-send-email-mgorman@xxxxxxx> <1310567487-15367-2-git-send-email-mgorman@xxxxxxx> <20110714103801.83e10fdb.kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110714044643.GA3203@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110714134634.4a7a15c8.kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110714150700.GC23587@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:07:00 -0400
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 01:46:34PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > XFS and btrfs already disable writeback from memcg context, as does ext4
> > > for the typical non-overwrite workloads, and none has fallen apart.
> > > 
> > > In fact there's no way we can enable them as the memcg calling contexts
> > > tend to have massive stack usage.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm, XFS/btrfs adds pages to radix-tree in deep stack ?
> 
> We're using a fairly deep stack in normal buffered read/write,
> wich is almost 100% common code.  It's not just the long callchain
> (see below), but also that we put the unneeded kiocb and a vector
> of I/O vects on the stack:
> 
> vfs_writev
> do_readv_writev
> do_sync_write
> generic_file_aio_write
> __generic_file_aio_write
> generic_file_buffered_write
> generic_perform_write
> block_write_begin
> grab_cache_page_write_begin
> add_to_page_cache_lru
> add_to_page_cache
> add_to_page_cache_locked
> mem_cgroup_cache_charge
> 
> this might additionally come from in-kernel callers like nfsd,
> which has even more stack space used.  And at this point we only
> enter the memcg/reclaim code, which last time I had a stack trace
> ate up another about 3k of stack space.
> 

Hmm. I'll prepare 2 functions for memcg 
  1. asynchronous memory reclaim as kswapd does.
  2. dirty_ratio

please remove ->writepage 1st. It may break memcg but it happens sometimes.
We'll do fix.

Thanks,
-Kame

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>