linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.


  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).