From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high allocator throttling
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 13:23:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200521122327.GB990580@chrisdown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200521120455.GM6462@dhcp22.suse.cz>
(I'll leave the dirty throttling discussion to Johannes, because I'm not so
familiar with that code or its history.)
Michal Hocko writes:
>> > The main problem I see with that approach is that the loop could easily
>> > lead to reclaim unfairness when a heavy producer which doesn't leave the
>> > kernel (e.g. a large read/write call) can keep a different task doing
>> > all the reclaim work. The loop is effectivelly unbound when there is a
>> > reclaim progress and so the return to the userspace is by no means
>> > proportional to the requested memory/charge.
>>
>> It's not unbound when there is reclaim progress, it stops when we are within
>> the memory.high throttling grace period. Right after reclaim, we check if
>> penalty_jiffies is less than 10ms, and abort and further reclaim or
>> allocator throttling:
>
>Just imagine that you have parallel producers increasing the high limit
>excess while somebody reclaims those. Sure in practice the loop will be
>bounded but the reclaimer might perform much more work on behalf of
>other tasks.
A cgroup is a unit and breaking it down into "reclaim fairness" for individual
tasks like this seems suspect to me. For example, if one task in a cgroup is
leaking unreclaimable memory like crazy, everyone in that cgroup is going to be
penalised by allocator throttling as a result, even if they aren't
"responsible" for that reclaim.
So the options here are as follows when a cgroup is over memory.high and a
single reclaim isn't enough:
1. Decline further reclaim. Instead, throttle for up to 2 seconds.
2. Keep on reclaiming. Only throttle if we can't get back under memory.high.
The outcome of your suggestion to decline further reclaim is case #1, which is
significantly more practically "unfair" to that task. Throttling is extremely
disruptive to tasks and should be a last resort when we've exhausted all other
practical options. It shouldn't be something you get just because you didn't
try to reclaim hard enough.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-21 12:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-20 14:37 [PATCH] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high allocator throttling Chris Down
2020-05-20 16:07 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-20 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-20 17:04 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-20 17:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-21 7:32 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 13:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-21 14:22 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-21 14:35 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 15:02 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 16:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-21 17:37 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 18:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-28 16:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-28 16:48 ` Chris Down
2020-05-29 7:31 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-29 10:08 ` Chris Down
2020-05-29 10:14 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-28 20:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-20 20:26 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 7:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 11:27 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 12:04 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 12:23 ` Chris Down [this message]
2020-05-21 12:24 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 12:37 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 12:57 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 13:05 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 13:28 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 13:41 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 13:58 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-21 14:22 ` Chris Down
2020-05-21 12:28 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-28 18:02 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-28 19:48 ` Chris Down
2020-05-28 20:29 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-28 21:02 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-28 21:14 ` Chris Down
2020-05-29 7:25 ` Michal Hocko
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=20200521122327.GB990580@chrisdown.name \
--to=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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).