From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681A1C433EF for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 19:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1383564AbiEMTJl (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2022 15:09:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41608 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1383566AbiEMTJj (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2022 15:09:39 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E704344F5 for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 12:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12544B83132 for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 19:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6637C34100; Fri, 13 May 2022 19:09:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1652468974; bh=LIKXl3AF7t4fXu5N7fE99JMRiGruGUdN80t5eBds5dI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:From; b=sNu2FpK+tHf+/67qtMdHSZXX1NBuPU2AncgumN5a1MznN4BxdeL2l8JoylWRsBglh s9g1OPT82w+vNlwiuKx/5Mxi0WikuicWaU/L7LNFnITg+P8WxDni+DEgfnH6skxov9 2SyadfO/I7tgb6Yi/oMfMzTFfBVX92C+DNXL7bxw= Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 12:09:34 -0700 To: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, void@manifault.com, tj@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, rpalethorpe@suse.de, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mhocko@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mkoutny@suse.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org From: Andrew Morton Subject: + selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups.patch added to mm-unstable branch Message-Id: <20220513190934.B6637C34100@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org The patch titled Subject: selftests: memcg: adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups.patch This patch will shortly appear at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups.patch This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's *** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code *** The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm and is updated there every 2-3 working days ------------------------------------------------------ From: Michal Koutný Subject: selftests: memcg: adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:18:10 +0200 The numbers are not easy to derive in a closed form (certainly mere protections ratios do not apply), therefore use a simulation to obtain expected numbers. The new values make the protection tests succeed more precisely. % run as: octave-cli script % % Input configurations % ------------------- % E parent effective protection % n nominal protection of siblings set at the givel level % c current consumption -,,- % example from testcase (values in GB) E = 50 / 1024; n = [75 25 0 500 ] / 1024; c = [50 50 50 0] / 1024; % Reclaim parameters % ------------------ % Minimal reclaim amount (GB) cluster = 32*4 / 2**20; % Reclaim coefficient (think as 0.5^sc->priority) alpha = .1 % Simulation parameters % --------------------- epsilon = 1e-7; timeout = 1000; % Simulation loop % --------------------- % Simulation assumes siblings consumed the initial amount of memory (w/out % reclaim) and then the reclaim starts, all memory is reclaimable, i.e. treated % same. It simulates only non-low reclaim and assumes all memory.min = 0. ch = []; eh = []; rh = []; for t = 1:timeout % low_usage u = min(c, n); siblings = sum(u); % effective_protection() protected = min(n, c); % start with nominal e = protected * min(1, E / siblings); % normalize overcommit % recursive protection unclaimed = max(0, E - siblings); parent_overuse = sum(c) - siblings; if (unclaimed > 0 && parent_overuse > 0) overuse = max(0, c - protected); e += unclaimed * (overuse / parent_overuse); endif % get_scan_count() r = alpha * c; % assume all memory is in a single LRU list % commit 1bc63fb1272b ("mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection") sz = max(e, c); r .*= (1 - (e+epsilon) ./ (sz+epsilon)); % uncomment to debug prints % e, c, r % nothing to reclaim, reached equilibrium if max(r) < epsilon break; endif % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX r = max(r, (r > epsilon) .* cluster); % XXX here I do parallel reclaim of all siblings % in reality reclaim is serialized and each sibling recalculates own residual c = max(c - r, 0); ch = [ch ; c]; eh = [eh ; e]; rh = [rh ; r]; endfor t c, e Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220513171811.730-4-mkoutny@suse.com Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Richard Palethorpe Cc: David Vernet Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 20 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c~selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -260,9 +260,9 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const cha * memory pressure in it. * * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/C memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, and checks @@ -365,10 +365,10 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *ro for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0) @@ -417,9 +417,9 @@ cleanup: * * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/ memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/ memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, @@ -512,10 +512,10 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *ro for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0) _ Patches currently in -mm which might be from mkoutny@suse.com are selftests-memcg-fix-compilation.patch selftests-memcg-expect-no-low-events-in-unprotected-sibling.patch selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups.patch selftests-memcg-remove-protection-from-top-level-memcg.patch