vmscan: add block plug for page reclaim

per-task block plug can reduce block queue lock contention and increase
request merge.  Currently page reclaim doesn't support it.  I originally
thought page reclaim doesn't need it, because kswapd thread count is
limited and file cache write is done at flusher mostly.

When I test a workload with heavy swap in a 4-node machine, each CPU is
doing direct page reclaim and swap.  This causes block queue lock
contention.  In my test, without below patch, the CPU utilization is about
2% ~ 7%.  With the patch, the CPU utilization is about 1% ~ 3%.  Disk
throughput isn't changed.  This should improve normal kswapd write and
file cache write too (increase request merge for example), but might not
be so obvious as I explain above.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
mm: vmscan: drop nr_force_scan[] from get_scan_count

The nr_force_scan[] tuple holds the effective scan numbers for anon and
file pages in case the situation called for a forced scan and the
regularly calculated scan numbers turned out zero.

However, the effective scan number can always be assumed to be
SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX right before the division into anon and file.  The
numerators and denominator are properly set up for all cases, be it force
scan for just file, just anon, or both, to do the right thing.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
mm: vmscan: do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim

Testing from the XFS folk revealed that there is still too much I/O from
the end of the LRU in kswapd.  Previously it was considered acceptable by
VM people for a small number of pages to be written back from reclaim with
testing generally showing about 0.3% of pages reclaimed were written back
(higher if memory was low).  That writing back a small number of pages is
ok has been heavily disputed for quite some time and Dave Chinner
explained it well;

	It doesn't have to be a very high number to be a problem. IO
	is orders of magnitude slower than the CPU time it takes to
	flush a page, so the cost of making a bad flush decision is
	very high. And single page writeback from the LRU is almost
	always a bad flush decision.

To complicate matters, filesystems respond very differently to requests
from reclaim according to Christoph Hellwig;

	xfs tries to write it back if the requester is kswapd
	ext4 ignores the request if it's a delayed allocation
	btrfs ignores the request

As a result, each filesystem has different performance characteristics
when under memory pressure and there are many pages being dirtied.  In
some cases, the request is ignored entirely so the VM cannot depend on the
IO being dispatched.

The objective of this series is to reduce writing of filesystem-backed
pages from reclaim, play nicely with writeback that is already in progress
and throttle reclaim appropriately when writeback pages are encountered.
The assumption is that the flushers will always write pages faster than if
reclaim issues the IO.

A secondary goal is to avoid the problem whereby direct reclaim splices
two potentially deep call stacks together.

There is a potential new problem as reclaim has less control over how long
before a page in a particularly zone or container is cleaned and direct
reclaimers depend on kswapd or flusher threads to do the necessary work.
However, as filesystems sometimes ignore direct reclaim requests already,
it is not expected to be a serious issue.

Patch 1 disables writeback of filesystem pages from direct reclaim
	entirely. Anonymous pages are still written.

Patch 2 removes dead code in lumpy reclaim as it is no longer able
	to synchronously write pages. This hurts lumpy reclaim but
	there is an expectation that compaction is used for hugepage
	allocations these days and lumpy reclaim's days are numbered.

Patches 3-4 add warnings to XFS and ext4 if called from
	direct reclaim. With patch 1, this "never happens" and is
	intended to catch regressions in this logic in the future.

Patch 5 disables writeback of filesystem pages from kswapd unless
	the priority is raised to the point where kswapd is considered
	to be in trouble.

Patch 6 throttles reclaimers if too many dirty pages are being
	encountered and the zones or backing devices are congested.

Patch 7 invalidates dirty pages found at the end of the LRU so they
	are reclaimed quickly after being written back rather than
	waiting for a reclaimer to find them

I consider this series to be orthogonal to the writeback work but it is
worth noting that the writeback work affects the viability of patch 8 in
particular.

I tested this on ext4 and xfs using fs_mark, a simple writeback test based
on dd and a micro benchmark that does a streaming write to a large mapping
(exercises use-once LRU logic) followed by streaming writes to a mix of
anonymous and file-backed mappings.  The command line for fs_mark when
botted with 512M looked something like

./fs_mark -d  /tmp/fsmark-2676  -D  100  -N  150  -n  150  -L  25  -t  1  -S0  -s  10485760

The number of files was adjusted depending on the amount of available
memory so that the files created was about 3xRAM.  For multiple threads,
the -d switch is specified multiple times.

The test machine is x86-64 with an older generation of AMD processor with
4 cores.  The underlying storage was 4 disks configured as RAID-0 as this
was the best configuration of storage I had available.  Swap is on a
separate disk.  Dirty ratio was tuned to 40% instead of the default of
20%.

Testing was run with and without monitors to both verify that the patches
were operating as expected and that any performance gain was real and not
due to interference from monitors.

Here is a summary of results based on testing XFS.

512M1P-xfs           Files/s  mean                 32.69 ( 0.00%)     34.44 ( 5.08%)
512M1P-xfs           Elapsed Time fsmark                    51.41     48.29
512M1P-xfs           Elapsed Time simple-wb                114.09    108.61
512M1P-xfs           Elapsed Time mmap-strm                113.46    109.34
512M1P-xfs           Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 62%       63%
512M1P-xfs           Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              56%       61%
512M1P-xfs           Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              44%       42%
512M-xfs             Files/s  mean                 30.78 ( 0.00%)     35.94 (14.36%)
512M-xfs             Elapsed Time fsmark                    56.08     48.90
512M-xfs             Elapsed Time simple-wb                112.22     98.13
512M-xfs             Elapsed Time mmap-strm                219.15    196.67
512M-xfs             Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 54%       56%
512M-xfs             Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              54%       55%
512M-xfs             Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              45%       44%
512M-4X-xfs          Files/s  mean                 30.31 ( 0.00%)     33.33 ( 9.06%)
512M-4X-xfs          Elapsed Time fsmark                    63.26     55.88
512M-4X-xfs          Elapsed Time simple-wb                100.90     90.25
512M-4X-xfs          Elapsed Time mmap-strm                261.73    255.38
512M-4X-xfs          Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 49%       50%
512M-4X-xfs          Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              54%       56%
512M-4X-xfs          Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              37%       36%
512M-16X-xfs         Files/s  mean                 60.89 ( 0.00%)     65.22 ( 6.64%)
512M-16X-xfs         Elapsed Time fsmark                    67.47     58.25
512M-16X-xfs         Elapsed Time simple-wb                103.22     90.89
512M-16X-xfs         Elapsed Time mmap-strm                237.09    198.82
512M-16X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 45%       46%
512M-16X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              53%       55%
512M-16X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              33%       33%

Up until 512-4X, the FSmark improvements were statistically significant.
For the 4X and 16X tests the results were within standard deviations but
just barely.  The time to completion for all tests is improved which is an
important result.  In general, kswapd efficiency is not affected by
skipping dirty pages.

1024M1P-xfs          Files/s  mean                 39.09 ( 0.00%)     41.15 ( 5.01%)
1024M1P-xfs          Elapsed Time fsmark                    84.14     80.41
1024M1P-xfs          Elapsed Time simple-wb                210.77    184.78
1024M1P-xfs          Elapsed Time mmap-strm                162.00    160.34
1024M1P-xfs          Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 69%       75%
1024M1P-xfs          Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              71%       77%
1024M1P-xfs          Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              43%       44%
1024M-xfs            Files/s  mean                 35.45 ( 0.00%)     37.00 ( 4.19%)
1024M-xfs            Elapsed Time fsmark                    94.59     91.00
1024M-xfs            Elapsed Time simple-wb                229.84    195.08
1024M-xfs            Elapsed Time mmap-strm                405.38    440.29
1024M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 79%       71%
1024M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              74%       74%
1024M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              39%       42%
1024M-4X-xfs         Files/s  mean                 32.63 ( 0.00%)     35.05 ( 6.90%)
1024M-4X-xfs         Elapsed Time fsmark                   103.33     97.74
1024M-4X-xfs         Elapsed Time simple-wb                204.48    178.57
1024M-4X-xfs         Elapsed Time mmap-strm                528.38    511.88
1024M-4X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 81%       70%
1024M-4X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              73%       72%
1024M-4X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              39%       38%
1024M-16X-xfs        Files/s  mean                 42.65 ( 0.00%)     42.97 ( 0.74%)
1024M-16X-xfs        Elapsed Time fsmark                   103.11     99.11
1024M-16X-xfs        Elapsed Time simple-wb                200.83    178.24
1024M-16X-xfs        Elapsed Time mmap-strm                397.35    459.82
1024M-16X-xfs        Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 84%       69%
1024M-16X-xfs        Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              74%       73%
1024M-16X-xfs        Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              39%       40%

All FSMark tests up to 16X had statistically significant improvements.
For the most part, tests are completing faster with the exception of the
streaming writes to a mixture of anonymous and file-backed mappings which
were slower in two cases

In the cases where the mmap-strm tests were slower, there was more
swapping due to dirty pages being skipped.  The number of additional pages
swapped is almost identical to the fewer number of pages written from
reclaim.  In other words, roughly the same number of pages were reclaimed
but swapping was slower.  As the test is a bit unrealistic and stresses
memory heavily, the small shift is acceptable.

4608M1P-xfs          Files/s  mean                 29.75 ( 0.00%)     30.96 ( 3.91%)
4608M1P-xfs          Elapsed Time fsmark                   512.01    492.15
4608M1P-xfs          Elapsed Time simple-wb                618.18    566.24
4608M1P-xfs          Elapsed Time mmap-strm                488.05    465.07
4608M1P-xfs          Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 93%       86%
4608M1P-xfs          Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              88%       84%
4608M1P-xfs          Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              46%       45%
4608M-xfs            Files/s  mean                 27.60 ( 0.00%)     28.85 ( 4.33%)
4608M-xfs            Elapsed Time fsmark                   555.96    532.34
4608M-xfs            Elapsed Time simple-wb                659.72    571.85
4608M-xfs            Elapsed Time mmap-strm               1082.57   1146.38
4608M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 89%       91%
4608M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              88%       82%
4608M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              48%       46%
4608M-4X-xfs         Files/s  mean                 26.00 ( 0.00%)     27.47 ( 5.35%)
4608M-4X-xfs         Elapsed Time fsmark                   592.91    564.00
4608M-4X-xfs         Elapsed Time simple-wb                616.65    575.07
4608M-4X-xfs         Elapsed Time mmap-strm               1773.02   1631.53
4608M-4X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 90%       94%
4608M-4X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              87%       82%
4608M-4X-xfs         Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              43%       43%
4608M-16X-xfs        Files/s  mean                 26.07 ( 0.00%)     26.42 ( 1.32%)
4608M-16X-xfs        Elapsed Time fsmark                   602.69    585.78
4608M-16X-xfs        Elapsed Time simple-wb                606.60    573.81
4608M-16X-xfs        Elapsed Time mmap-strm               1549.75   1441.86
4608M-16X-xfs        Kswapd efficiency fsmark                 98%       98%
4608M-16X-xfs        Kswapd efficiency simple-wb              88%       82%
4608M-16X-xfs        Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm              44%       42%

Unlike the other tests, the fsmark results are not statistically
significant but the min and max times are both improved and for the most
part, tests completed faster.

There are other indications that this is an improvement as well.  For
example, in the vast majority of cases, there were fewer pages scanned by
direct reclaim implying in many cases that stalls due to direct reclaim
are reduced.  KSwapd is scanning more due to skipping dirty pages which is
unfortunate but the CPU usage is still acceptable

In an earlier set of tests, I used blktrace and in almost all cases
throughput throughout the entire test was higher.  However, I ended up
discarding those results as recording blktrace data was too heavy for my
liking.

On a laptop, I plugged in a USB stick and ran a similar tests of tests
using it as backing storage.  A desktop environment was running and for
the entire duration of the tests, firefox and gnome terminal were
launching and exiting to vaguely simulate a user.

1024M-xfs            Files/s  mean               0.41 ( 0.00%)        0.44 ( 6.82%)
1024M-xfs            Elapsed Time fsmark               2053.52   1641.03
1024M-xfs            Elapsed Time simple-wb            1229.53    768.05
1024M-xfs            Elapsed Time mmap-strm            4126.44   4597.03
1024M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency fsmark              84%       85%
1024M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency simple-wb           92%       81%
1024M-xfs            Kswapd efficiency mmap-strm           60%       51%
1024M-xfs            Avg wait ms fsmark                5404.53     4473.87
1024M-xfs            Avg wait ms simple-wb             2541.35     1453.54
1024M-xfs            Avg wait ms mmap-strm             3400.25     3852.53

The mmap-strm results were hurt because firefox launching had a tendency
to push the test out of memory.  On the postive side, firefox launched
marginally faster with the patches applied.  Time to completion for many
tests was faster but more importantly - the "Avg wait" time as measured by
iostat was far lower implying the system would be more responsive.  It was
also the case that "Avg wait ms" on the root filesystem was lower.  I
tested it manually and while the system felt slightly more responsive
while copying data to a USB stick, it was marginal enough that it could be
my imagination.

This patch: do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim.

When kswapd is failing to keep zones above the min watermark, a process
will enter direct reclaim in the same manner kswapd does.  If a dirty page
is encountered during the scan, this page is written to backing storage
using mapping->writepage.

This causes two problems.  First, it can result in very deep call stacks,
particularly if the target storage or filesystem are complex.  Some
filesystems ignore write requests from direct reclaim as a result.  The
second is that a single-page flush is inefficient in terms of IO.  While
there is an expectation that the elevator will merge requests, this does
not always happen.  Quoting Christoph Hellwig;

	The elevator has a relatively small window it can operate on,
	and can never fix up a bad large scale writeback pattern.

This patch prevents direct reclaim writing back filesystem pages by
checking if current is kswapd.  Anonymous pages are still written to swap
as there is not the equivalent of a flusher thread for anonymous pages.
If the dirty pages cannot be written back, they are placed back on the LRU
lists.  There is now a direct dependency on dirty page balancing to
prevent too many pages in the system being dirtied which would prevent
reclaim making forward progress.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
mm: vmscan: remove dead code related to lumpy reclaim waiting on pages under writeback

Lumpy reclaim worked with two passes - the first which queued pages for IO
and the second which waited on writeback.  As direct reclaim can no longer
write pages there is some dead code.  This patch removes it but direct
reclaim will continue to wait on pages under writeback while in
synchronous reclaim mode.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>