Re: [v5 PATCH 08/11] mm: vmscan: use per memcg nr_deferred of shrinker

From: Yang Shi
Date: Fri Jan 29 2021 - 12:38:27 EST


On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:13 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/21 12:33 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
> > Use per memcg's nr_deferred for memcg aware shrinkers. The shrinker's nr_deferred
> > will be used in the following cases:
> > 1. Non memcg aware shrinkers
> > 2. !CONFIG_MEMCG
> > 3. memcg is disabled by boot parameter
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 20be0db291fe..e1f8960f5cf6 100644
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -653,14 +717,9 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> > next_deferred = 0;
> > /*
> > * move the unused scan count back into the shrinker in a
> > - * manner that handles concurrent updates. If we exhausted the
> > - * scan, there is no need to do an update.
> > + * manner that handles concurrent updates.
> > */
> > - if (next_deferred > 0)
> > - new_nr = atomic_long_add_return(next_deferred,
> > - &shrinker->nr_deferred[nid]);
> > - else
> > - new_nr = atomic_long_read(&shrinker->nr_deferred[nid]);
>
> Why not keep this write avoidance if next_deferred == 0 in the new helper?

Because IMHO the write avoidance may not make too much difference
since nr_deferred was updated for the most cases per my tracing
result. So I thought this would make the code more clean.

>
> > + new_nr = set_nr_deferred(next_deferred, shrinker, shrinkctl);
> >
> > trace_mm_shrink_slab_end(shrinker, shrinkctl->nid, freed, nr, new_nr, total_scan);
> > return freed;
> >
>