All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
	cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:34:40 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1457643015-8828-1-git-send-email-hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:50:13PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When setting memory.high below usage, nothing happens until the next
> charge comes along, and then it will only reclaim its own charge and
> not the now potentially huge excess of the new memory.high. This can
> cause groups to stay in excess of their memory.high indefinitely.
> 
> To fix that, when shrinking memory.high, kick off a reclaim cycle that
> goes after the delta.

I agree that we should reclaim the high excess, but I don't think it's a
good idea to do it synchronously. Currently, memory.low and memory.high
knobs can be easily used by a single-threaded load manager implemented
in userspace, because it doesn't need to care about potential stalls
caused by writes to these files. After this change it might happen that
a write to memory.high would take long, seconds perhaps, so in order to
react quickly to changes in other cgroups, a load manager would have to
spawn a thread per each write to memory.high, which would complicate its
implementation significantly.

Since, in contrast to memory.max, memory.high definition allows cgroup
to breach it, I believe it would be better if we spawned an asynchronous
reclaim work from the kernel on write to memory.high instead of doing
this synchronously. I guess we could reuse mem_cgroup->high_work for
that.

Thanks,
Vladimir

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:34:40 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1457643015-8828-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org>

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:50:13PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When setting memory.high below usage, nothing happens until the next
> charge comes along, and then it will only reclaim its own charge and
> not the now potentially huge excess of the new memory.high. This can
> cause groups to stay in excess of their memory.high indefinitely.
> 
> To fix that, when shrinking memory.high, kick off a reclaim cycle that
> goes after the delta.

I agree that we should reclaim the high excess, but I don't think it's a
good idea to do it synchronously. Currently, memory.low and memory.high
knobs can be easily used by a single-threaded load manager implemented
in userspace, because it doesn't need to care about potential stalls
caused by writes to these files. After this change it might happen that
a write to memory.high would take long, seconds perhaps, so in order to
react quickly to changes in other cgroups, a load manager would have to
spawn a thread per each write to memory.high, which would complicate its
implementation significantly.

Since, in contrast to memory.max, memory.high definition allows cgroup
to breach it, I believe it would be better if we spawned an asynchronous
reclaim work from the kernel on write to memory.high instead of doing
this synchronously. I guess we could reuse mem_cgroup->high_work for
that.

Thanks,
Vladimir

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:34:40 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1457643015-8828-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org>

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:50:13PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When setting memory.high below usage, nothing happens until the next
> charge comes along, and then it will only reclaim its own charge and
> not the now potentially huge excess of the new memory.high. This can
> cause groups to stay in excess of their memory.high indefinitely.
> 
> To fix that, when shrinking memory.high, kick off a reclaim cycle that
> goes after the delta.

I agree that we should reclaim the high excess, but I don't think it's a
good idea to do it synchronously. Currently, memory.low and memory.high
knobs can be easily used by a single-threaded load manager implemented
in userspace, because it doesn't need to care about potential stalls
caused by writes to these files. After this change it might happen that
a write to memory.high would take long, seconds perhaps, so in order to
react quickly to changes in other cgroups, a load manager would have to
spawn a thread per each write to memory.high, which would complicate its
implementation significantly.

Since, in contrast to memory.max, memory.high definition allows cgroup
to breach it, I believe it would be better if we spawned an asynchronous
reclaim work from the kernel on write to memory.high instead of doing
this synchronously. I guess we could reuse mem_cgroup->high_work for
that.

Thanks,
Vladimir

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-03-11  8:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-10 20:50 [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage Johannes Weiner
2016-03-10 20:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-03-10 20:50 ` Johannes Weiner
     [not found] ` <1457643015-8828-1-git-send-email-hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
2016-03-11  7:55   ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11  7:55     ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11  7:55     ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11  8:34   ` Vladimir Davydov [this message]
2016-03-11  8:34     ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11  8:34     ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11  8:42     ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11  8:42       ` Michal Hocko
     [not found]       ` <20160311084238.GE27701-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2016-03-11  9:13         ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11  9:13           ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11  9:13           ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11  9:53           ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11  9:53             ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 11:49             ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 11:49               ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 13:39               ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 13:39                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 14:01                 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 14:01                   ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 14:22                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 14:22                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 14:22                     ` Michal Hocko
     [not found]                     ` <20160311142227.GR27701-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2016-03-11 14:46                       ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 14:46                         ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 14:46                         ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-16  5:41     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-03-16  5:41       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-03-16 14:47       ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-16 14:47         ` Vladimir Davydov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza \
    --to=vdavydov-5hdwgun5lf+gspxsjd1c4w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.