On 07/11/2018 03:21 PM, James Bottomley wrote:

On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 15:07 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

quoted

On 07/11/2018 01:42 PM, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 11:13 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

quoted

On 07/11/2018 06:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

On Tue 10-07-18 12:09:17, Waiman Long wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

I am going to reduce the granularity of each unit to 1/1000
of the total system memory so that for large system with TB
of memory, a smaller amount of memory can be specified.

It is just a matter of time for this to be too coarse as well.

The goal is to not have too much memory being consumed by
negative
dentries and also the limit won't be reached by regular daily
activities. So a limit of 1/1000 of the total system memory will
be good enough on large memory system even if the absolute number
is really big.

OK, I think the reason we're going round and round here without
converging is that one of the goals of the mm subsystem is to
manage all of our cached objects and to it the negative (and
positive) dentries simply look like a clean cache of
objects.  Right at the moment mm manages them in the same way it
manages all the other caches, a lot of which suffer from the "you
can cause lots of allocations to artificially grow them"
problem.  So the main question is why doesn't the current mm
control of the caches work well enough for dentries? 
What are the problems you're seeing that mm should be catching?  If
you can answer this, then we could get on to whether a separate
shrinker, cache separation or some fix in mm itself is the right
answer.

What you say above is based on a conclusion: limiting dentries
improves the system performance.  What we're asking for is evidence
for that conclusion so we can explore whether the same would go for
any of our other system caches (so do we have a global cache
management problem or is it only the dentry cache?)

James

I am not saying that limiting dentries will improve performance. I am
just saying that unlimited growth in the number of negative dentries
will reduce the amount of memory available to other applications and
hence will have an impact on performance. Normally the amount of
memory consumed by dentries is a very small portion of the system
memory.

OK, can we poke on only this point for a while?  Linux never really has
any "available memory": pretty much as soon as you boot up the system
will consume all your free memory for some type of cache (usually the
page cache which got filled during boot).  The expectation is that in a
steady, running, state the system is using almost all available memory
for caching something ... if it's not negative dentries it will be
something else.  The mm assumption is that clean cache is so cheap to
recover that it's almost equivalent to free memory and your patch is
saying this isn't so and we have a problem dumping the dentry cache.

So, why can't we treat the dentry cache as equivalent to free memory? 
What in your tests is making it harder to recover the memory in the
dentry cache?

James

It is not that dentry cache is harder to get rid of than the other
memory. It is that the ability of generate unlimited number of negative
dentries that will displace other useful memory from the system. What
the patch is trying to do is to have a warning or notification system in
place to spot unusual activities in regard to the number of negative
dentries in the system. The system administrators can then decide on
what to do next.

For many user activities, there are ways to audit what the users are
doing and what resources they are consuming. I don't think that is the
case for negative dentries. The closest I can think of is the use of
memory controller to limit the amount of kernel memory use. This
patchset will provide more visibility about the memory consumption of
negative dentries for the system as a whole, though it won't go into the
per-user level. We just don't want a disproportionate amount of memory
to be used up by negative dentries.

Cheers,
Longman

Cheers,
Longman

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html