Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: clear page protection when memcg oom group happens

Yafang Shao
2019-11-25T14:45:21Z

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:21 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon 25-11-19 22:11:15, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:45 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 25-11-19 20:37:52, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:31 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > Again, what is a problem that you are trying to fix?
> > > >
> > > > When there's no processes running in a memcg, for example if they are
> > > > killed by OOM killer, we can't reclaim the file page cache protected
> > > > by memory.min of this memcg. These file page caches are useless in
> > > > this case.
> > > > That's what I'm trying to fix.
> > >
> > > Could you be more specific please? I would assume that the group oom
> > > configured memcg would either restart its workload when killed (that is
> > > why you want to kill the whole workload to restart it cleanly in many
> > > case) or simply tear down the memcg altogether.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, we always restart it automatically if these processes are exit
> > (no matter because of OOM or some other reason).
> > It is safe to do that if OOM happens, because OOM is always because of
> > anon pages leaked and the restart can free these anon pages.
>
> No this is an incorrect assumption. The OOM might happen for many
> different reasons.
>
> > But there may be some cases that we can't success to restart it, while
> > if that happens the protected pages will be never be reclaimed until
> > the admin reset it or make this memcg offline.
>
> If the workload cannot be restarted for whatever reason then you need an
> admin intervention and a proper cleanup. That would include resetting
> reclaim protection when in use.
>
> > When there're no processes, we don't need to protect the pages. You
> > can consider it as 'fault tolerance' .
>
> I have already tried to explain why this is a bold statement that
> doesn't really hold universally and that the kernel doesn't really have
> enough information to make an educated guess.
>

I didn't mean we must relcaim the protected pages in all cases, while
I mean sometimes we should relcaim the protected pages.
If the kernel can't make an educated guess, we can tell the kernel to
do it, for example, to introduce a new controller file to tell the
kernel whehter or not relcaim the protected pages if there're no
proceses running.

> > > In other words why do you care about the oom killer case so much? It is
> > > not different that handling a lingering memcg with the workload already
> > > finished. You simply have no way to know whether the reclaim protection
> > > is still required. Admin is supposed to either offline the memcg that is
> > > no longer used or drop the reclaim protection once it is not needed
> > > because that has some visible consequences on the overall system
> > > operation.
> >
> > Actually what I concern is the case that there's no process running
> > but memory protection coninues protecting the file pages.
> > OOM is just one case of them.
>
> This sounds like a misconfiguration which should be handled by an admin.

That may be a misconfiguration, but the kernel can do something
before the admin notice it.

Thanks

Yafang