cgroups.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
	<kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>,
	Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm/memcg: recalculate chargeable space after waiting migrating charges
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:38:22 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120712133822.GA2432@kernel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120712122912.GH21013-VqjxzfR4DlwKmadIfiO5sKVXKuFTiq87@public.gmane.org>

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 02:29:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Thu 12-07-12 19:51:25, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 01:08:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >On Thu 12-07-12 18:39:21, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> >> From: Wanpeng Li <liwp-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
>> >> 
>> >> Function mem_cgroup_do_charge will call mem_cgroup_reclaim,
>> >> there are two break points in mem_cgroup_reclaim:
>> >> if (total && (flag & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHIRINK))
>> >> 	break;
>> >> if (mem_cgroup_margin(memcg))
>> >> 	break;
>> >> so mem_cgroup_reclaim can't guarantee reclaim enough pages(nr_pages) 
>> >> which is requested from mem_cgroup_do_charge, if mem_cgroup_margin
>> >> (mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages is not true, the process will go to
>> >> mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move to wait doubly charge counted caused by
>> >> task move. 
>> >
>> >I am sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say. The
>> >mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move just makes sure that we are waiting until
>> >charge is moved (which can potentially free some charges) rather than
>> >OOM which should be the last resort so it makes sense to retry them
>> >charge.
>> >
>> >> But this time still can't guarantee enough pages(nr_pages) is
>> >> ready, directly return CHARGE_RETRY is incorret. 
>> >
>> >So you think it is better to oom? Why? What prevents you from a race
>> >that your mem_cgroup_margin returns true but another CPU consumes those
>> >charges right after that. See? The check is pointless. It doesn't
>> 
>> Hmm, if there are a race as you mentioned it can't guarantee enough pages 
>> is ready. 
>
>And there is no point in guaranteeing anything which I tried to tell you
>by the example... The only thing that matters is whether we get the charge
>on the next attempt and if not whether we are able to reclaim something.
>See?
>
>> But it also means that available memory is too low if this
>> race happen. If available charges still less than nr_pages
>> after mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(which can potentially
>> free some charges) return, the CHAGE_RETRY will trigged,
>> and then mem_cgroup_do_charge=>meory_cgroup_reclaim
>> =>mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move, if available charges still less than
>> nr_pages in this round, CHAGE_RETRY.....
>
>> To avoid this infinite retry when available memory 
>
>I do not see a realistic scenario which would cause this to be infinite loop
>withou OOM jumping in.
>We would have to hit the wait for move after each reclaim and the move would
>have to keep the the usage constant (move is really fast without moving
>charges).
>So what you are trying to address (if I understand it at all) is to fix
>an almost impossible to trigger issue with a bogus change which doesn't
>help at all because it is racy as well.

OK. Thank you Michal! :-)

Thanks & Best Regards,
Wanpeng Li

>
>> in this memcg is very low, go to OOM if mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) 
>> < nr_pages is a better way I think. Because the codes have already try
>> its best to reclaim some pages. :-)
>
>
>> 
>[...]
>-- 
>Michal Hocko
>SUSE Labs
>SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
>Lihovarska 1060/12
>190 00 Praha 9    
>Czech Republic

      parent reply	other threads:[~2012-07-12 13:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-12 10:39 [PATCH RFC] mm/memcg: recalculate chargeable space after waiting migrating charges Wanpeng Li
     [not found] ` <1342089561-11211-1-git-send-email-liwp.linux-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2012-07-12 11:08   ` Michal Hocko
2012-07-12 11:51     ` Wanpeng Li
2012-07-12 12:29       ` Michal Hocko
     [not found]         ` <20120712122912.GH21013-VqjxzfR4DlwKmadIfiO5sKVXKuFTiq87@public.gmane.org>
2012-07-12 13:38           ` Wanpeng Li [this message]

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=20120712133822.GA2432@kernel \
    --to=liwp.linux-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumwx3w@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=kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).