From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@surriel.com,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeelb@google.com,
muchun.song@linux.dev, tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
shuah@kernel.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, yosryahmed@google.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in memory controller
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:25:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231002152555.GA5054@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZRrc8hv4t740MZar@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 05:08:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-10-23 10:50:26, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 27-09-23 17:57:22, Nhat Pham wrote:
> [...]
> > > - memcg limit reclaim doesn't assist hugetlb pages allocation when
> > > hugetlb overcommit is configured (i.e. pages are not consumed from the
> > > pool) which means that the page allocation might disrupt workloads
> > > from other memcgs.
> > > - failure to charge a hugetlb page results in SIGBUS rather
> > > than memcg oom killer. That could be the case even if the
> > > hugetlb pool still has pages available and there is
> > > reclaimable memory in the memcg.
> >
> > Are these actually true? AFAICS, regardless of whether the page comes
> > from the pool or the buddy allocator, the memcg code will go through
> > the regular charge path, attempt reclaim, and OOM if that fails.
>
> OK, I should have been more explicit. Let me expand. Charges are
> accounted only _after_ the actual allocation is done. So the actual
> allocation is not constrained by the memcg context. It might reclaim
> from the memcg at that time but the disruption could have already
> happened. Not really any different from regular memory allocation
> attempt but much more visible with GB pages and one could reasonably
> expect that memcg should stop such a GB allocation if the local reclaim
> would be hopeless to free up enough from its own consumption.
>
> Makes more sense?
Yes, that makes sense.
This should be fairly easy to address by having hugetlb do the split
transaction that charge_memcg() does in one go, similar to what we do
for the hugetlb controller as well. IOW,
alloc_hugetlb_folio()
{
if (mem_cgroup_hugetlb_try_charge())
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
folio = dequeue();
if (!folio) {
folio = alloc_buddy();
if (!folio)
goto uncharge;
}
mem_cgroup_hugetlb_commit_charge();
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-02 15:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-28 0:57 [PATCH v2 0/2] hugetlb memcg accounting Nhat Pham
2023-09-28 0:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in memory controller Nhat Pham
2023-09-28 22:59 ` Frank van der Linden
2023-09-29 0:33 ` Nhat Pham
2023-09-29 0:38 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-09-29 0:58 ` Nhat Pham
2023-09-29 1:07 ` Nhat Pham
2023-09-29 1:18 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-09-29 1:25 ` Nhat Pham
2023-09-29 15:08 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-09-29 15:11 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-09-29 17:42 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-09-29 17:48 ` Nhat Pham
2023-09-29 18:07 ` Frank van der Linden
2023-10-02 12:18 ` Michal Hocko
2023-09-29 18:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in memory controller (fix) Nhat Pham
2023-09-29 18:19 ` Nhat Pham
2023-10-02 13:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in memory controller Michal Hocko
2023-10-02 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-10-02 15:08 ` Michal Hocko
2023-10-02 15:25 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2023-10-02 17:32 ` Nhat Pham
2023-10-03 9:17 ` Michal Hocko
2023-10-02 16:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-10-02 17:28 ` Nhat Pham
2023-09-28 0:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests: add a selftest to verify hugetlb usage in memcg Nhat Pham
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=20231002152555.GA5054@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yosryahmed@google.com \
/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).