Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memcg: Use larger batches for proactive reclaim

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Mon 19-02-24 08:39:19, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:11 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 06-02-24 09:58:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 05-02-24 20:01:40, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:16 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon 05-02-24 12:47:47, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:36 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > This of something like
> > > > > > > timeout $TIMEOUT echo $TARGET > $MEMCG_PATH/memory.reclaim
> > > > > > > where timeout acts as a stop gap if the reclaim cannot finish in
> > > > > > > TIMEOUT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah I get the desired behavior, but using sc->nr_reclaimed to achieve
> > > > > > it is what's bothering me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not really happy about this subtlety. If we have a better way then
> > > > > let's do it. Better in its own patch, though.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's already wired up that way though, so if you want to make this
> > > > > > change now then I can try to test for the difference using really
> > > > > > large reclaim targets.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, please. If you want it a separate patch then no objection from me
> > > > > of course. If you do no like the nr_to_reclaim bailout then maybe we can
> > > > > go with a simple break out flag in scan_control.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > It's a bit difficult to test under the too_many_isolated check, so I
> > > > moved the fatal_signal_pending check outside and tried with that.
> > > > Performing full reclaim on the /uid_0 cgroup with a 250ms delay before
> > > > SIGKILL, I got an average of 16ms better latency with
> > > > sc->nr_to_reclaim across 20 runs ignoring one 1s outlier with
> > > > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX.
> > >
> > > This will obviously scale with the number of memcgs in the hierarchy but
> > > you are right that too_many_isolated makes the whole fatal_signal_pending
> > > check rather inefficient. I haven't missed that. The reclaim path is
> > > rather convoluted so this will likely be more complex than I
> > > anticipated. I will think about that some more.
> > >
> > > In order to not delay your patch, please repost with suggested updates
> > > to the changelog. This needs addressing IMO but I do not think this is
> > > critical at this stage.
> >
> > Has there been a new version or a proposal to refine the changelog
> > posted?
> 
> Hi Michal,
> 
> I updated the commit message in V4 to include a sentence about restart
> cost, and added a line above each reclaim test to note the MGLRU
> config and whether the memcg LRU was used or not.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240206175251.3364296-1-tjmercier@google.com/

Hmm, missed that one for some reason.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs