From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leonardo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E1s?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce memcg_stock_pcp remote draining Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 04:22:20 -0300 Message-ID: <52a0f1e593b1ec0ca7e417ba37680d65df22de82.camel@redhat.com> References: <20230125073502.743446-1-leobras@redhat.com> <9e61ab53e1419a144f774b95230b789244895424.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1674804149; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=78CU6PVXyI3TCut8pJAaTXp7IGKel4v7tbwx9feohu0=; b=HxuZErlGQyg1KsLdNsa3+oSrLtIY0wgC73nCHXYElHaFLltJLP2LazU8NhpFCXcCu7oImz 8t0bU6PVgsojxRjIHrhBD5ZYArBsRRjQVV1NDhn8oXazAAfkVsWtKK5SlchUhTxcpIZ9aR MlXjQ4ywIUIScT0EsSywxcxKY2Bs5cw= In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker On Fri, 2023-01-27 at 08:11 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc Frederic] >=20 > On Thu 26-01-23 15:12:35, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 08:41:34AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > > Essentially each cpu will try to grab the remains of the memory quo= ta > > > > and move it locally. I wonder in such circumstances if we need to d= isable the pcp-caching > > > > on per-cgroup basis. > > >=20 > > > I think it would be more than sufficient to disable pcp charging on a= n > > > isolated cpu. > >=20 > > It might have significant performance consequences. >=20 > Is it really significant? >=20 > > I'd rather opt out of stock draining for isolated cpus: it might slight= ly reduce > > the accuracy of memory limits and slightly increase the memory footprin= t (all > > those dying memcgs...), but the impact will be limited. Actually it is = limited > > by the number of cpus. >=20 > Hmm, OK, I have misunderstood your proposal. Yes, the overal pcp charges > potentially left behind should be small and that shouldn't really be a > concern for memcg oom situations (unless the limit is very small and > workloads on isolated cpus using small hard limits is way beyond my > imagination). >=20 > My first thought was that those charges could be left behind without any > upper bound but in reality sooner or later something should be running > on those cpus and if the memcg is gone the pcp cache would get refilled > and old charges gone. >=20 > So yes, this is actually a better and even simpler solution. All we need > is something like this > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index ab457f0394ab..13b84bbd70ba 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -2344,6 +2344,9 @@ static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root= _memcg) > struct mem_cgroup *memcg; > bool flush =3D false; > =20 > + if (cpu_is_isolated(cpu)) > + continue; > + > rcu_read_lock(); > memcg =3D stock->cached; > if (memcg && stock->nr_pages && >=20 > There is no such cpu_is_isolated() AFAICS so we would need a help from > NOHZ and cpuisol people to create one for us. Frederic, would such an > abstraction make any sense from your POV? IIUC, 'if (cpu_is_isolated())' would be instead: if (!housekeeping_cpu(smp_processor_id(), HK_TYPE_DOMAIN) || !housekeeping_cpu(smp_processor_id(), HK_TYPE_WQ)