Re: [RFC] Add swappiness argument to memory.reclaim

Wei Xu
2022-05-19T05:17:49Z

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 1:45 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 01:11:13PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:49 PM Roman Gushchin
> > <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:13:10AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 9:05 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 03:29:42PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > > > The discussions on the patch series [1] to add memory.reclaim has
> > > > > > shown that it is desirable to add an argument to control the type of
> > > > > > memory being reclaimed by invoked proactive reclaim using
> > > > > > memory.reclaim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am proposing adding a swappiness optional argument to the interface.
> > > > > > If set, it overwrites vm.swappiness and per-memcg swappiness. This
> > > > > > provides a way to enforce user policy on a stateless per-reclaim
> > > > > > basis. We can make policy decisions to perform reclaim differently for
> > > > > > tasks of different app classes based on their individual QoS needs. It
> > > > > > also helps for use cases when particularly page cache is high and we
> > > > > > want to mainly hit that without swapping out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The interface would be something like this (utilizing the nested-keyed
> > > > > > interface we documented earlier):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > $ echo "200M swappiness=30" > memory.reclaim
> > > > >
> > > > > What are the anticipated use cases except swappiness == 0 and
> > > > > swappiness == system_default?
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO it's better to allow specifying the type of memory to reclaim,
> > > > > e.g. type="file"/"anon"/"slab", it's a way more clear what to expect.
> > > >
> > > > I imagined swappiness would give user space flexibility to reclaim a
> > > > ratio of file vs. anon as it sees fit based on app class or userspace
> > > > policy, but I agree that the guarantees of swappiness are weak and we
> > > > might want an explicit argument that directly controls the return
> > > > value of get_scan_count() or whether or not we call shrink_slab(). My
> > > > fear is that this interface may be less flexible, for example if we
> > > > only want to avoid reclaiming file pages, but we are fine with anon or
> > > > slab.
> > > > Maybe in the future we will have a new type of memory to
> > > > reclaim, does it get implicitly reclaimed when other types are
> > > > specified or not?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we can use one argument per type instead? E.g.
> > > > $ echo "200M file=no anon=yes slab=yes" > memory.reclaim
> > > >
> > > > The default value would be "yes" for all types unless stated
> > > > otherwise. This is also leaves room for future extensions (maybe
> > > > file=clean to reclaim clean file pages only?). Interested to hear your
> > > > thoughts on this!
> > >
> > > The question to answer is do you want the code which is determining
> > > the balance of scanning be a part of the interface?
> > >
> > > If not, I'd stick with explicitly specifying a type of memory to scan
> > > (and the "I don't care" mode, where you simply ask to reclaim X bytes).
> > >
> > > Otherwise you need to describe how the artificial memory pressure will
> > > be distributed over different memory types. And with time it might
> > > start being significantly different to what the generic reclaim code does,
> > > because the reclaim path is free to do what's better, there are no
> > > user-visible guarantees.
> >
> > My understanding is that your question is about the swappiness
> > argument, and I agree it can get complicated. I am on board with
> > explicitly specifying the type(s) to reclaim. I think an interface
> > with one argument per type (whitelist/blacklist approach) could be
> > more flexible in specifying multiple types per invocation (smaller
> > race window between reading usages and writing to memory.reclaim), and
> > has room for future extensions (e.g. file=clean). However, if you
> > still think a type=file/anon/slab parameter is better we can also go
> > with this.
>
> If you allow more than one type, how would you balance between them?
> E.g. in your example:
> $ echo "200M file=no anon=yes slab=yes" > memory.reclaim
> How much slab and anonymous memory will be reclaimed? 100M and 100M?
> Probably not (we don't balance slabs with other types of the memory).
> And if not, the interface becomes very vague: all we can guarantee
> is that *some* pressure will be applied on both anon and slab.
>
> My point is that the interface should have a deterministic behavior
> and not rely on the current state of the memory pressure balancing
> heuristic. It can be likely done in different ways, I don't have
> a strong opinion here.

I agree that the interface should have a clearly defined semantics and
also like your proposal of just specifying a page type (e..g
type=file/anon) to reclaim.

> Thanks!