Re: [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim

Michal Hocko
2014-05-19T16:18:34Z

Andrew, it seems this one got lost as well.

On Mon 05-05-14 16:21:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-05-14 18:00:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:49:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > > > index c1cd99a5074b..0f428158254e 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > +static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + if (!__shrink_zone(zone, sc, true)) {
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * First round of reclaim didn't find anything to reclaim
> > > > > > > + * because of low limit protection so try again and ignore
> > > > > > > + * the low limit this time.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + __shrink_zone(zone, sc, false);
> > > > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > So I don't think this can work as it is, because we are not actually
> > > > changing priority levels yet.
> > >
> > > __shrink_zone returns with 0 only if the whole hierarchy is is under low
> > > limit. This means that they are over-committed and it doesn't make much
> > > sense to play with priority. Low limit reclaimability is independent on
> > > the priority.
> > >
> > > > It will give up on the guarantees of bigger groups way before smaller
> > > > groups are even seriously looked at.
> > >
> > > How would that happen? Those (smaller) groups would get reclaimed and we
> > > wouldn't fallback. Or am I missing your point?
> >
> > Lol, I hadn't updated my brain to a394cb8ee632 ("memcg,vmscan: do not
> > break out targeted reclaim without reclaimed pages") yet... Yes, you
> > are right.
>
> You made me think about this more and you are right ;).
> The code as is doesn't cope with many racing reclaimers when some
> threads can fallback to ignore the lowlimit although there are groups to
> scan in the hierarchy but they were visited by other reclaimers.
> The patch bellow should help with that. What do you think?
> I am also thinking we want to add a fallback counter in memory.stat?
> ---
> From e997b8b4ac724aa29bdeff998d2186ee3c0a97d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 15:12:18 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: memcg: check whether the low limit should be ignored
>
> Low-limit (aka guarantee) is ignored when there is no group scanned
> during the first round of __shink_zone. This approach doesn't work when
> multiple reclaimers race and reclaim the same hierarchy (e.g. kswapd
> vs. direct reclaim or multiple tasks hitting the hard limit) because
> memcg iterator makes sure that multiple reclaimers are interleaved
> in the hierarchy. This means that some reclaimers can see 0 scanned
> groups although there are groups which are above the low-limit and they
> were reclaimed on behalf of other reclaimers. This leads to a premature
> low-limit break.
>
> This patch adds mem_cgroup_all_within_guarantee() which will check
> whether all the groups in the reclaimed hierarchy are within their low
> limit and shrink_zone will allow the fallback reclaim only when that is
> true. This alone is still not sufficient however because it would lead
> to another problem. If a reclaimer constantly fails to scan anything
> because it sees only groups within their guarantees while others do the
> reclaim then the reclaim priority would drop down very quickly.
> shrink_zone has to be careful to preserve scan at least one group
> semantic so __shrink_zone has to be retried until at least one group
> is scanned.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 5 +++++
> mm/memcontrol.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> mm/vmscan.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index c00ccc5f70b9..077a777bd9ff 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
>
> extern bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> struct mem_cgroup *root);
> +extern bool mem_cgroup_all_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *root);
>
> extern struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page);
> extern struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_task(struct task_struct *p);
> @@ -296,6 +297,10 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> {
> return false;
> }
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_all_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *root)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
>
> static inline struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
> {
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 58982d18f6ea..4fd4784d1548 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2833,6 +2833,19 @@ bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> return false;
> }
>
> +bool mem_cgroup_all_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *root)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *iter;
> +
> + for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, root)
> + if (!mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(iter, root)) {
> + mem_cgroup_iter_break(root, iter);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 5f923999bb79..2686e47f04cc 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2293,13 +2293,20 @@ static unsigned __shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
>
> static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> - if (!__shrink_zone(zone, sc, true)) {
> + bool honor_guarantee = true;
> +
> + while (!__shrink_zone(zone, sc, honor_guarantee)) {
> /*
> - * First round of reclaim didn't find anything to reclaim
> - * because of the memory guantees for all memcgs in the
> - * reclaim target so try again and ignore guarantees this time.
> + * The previous round of reclaim didn't find anything to scan
> + * because
> + * a) the whole reclaimed hierarchy is within guarantee so
> + * we fallback to ignore the guarantee because other option
> + * would be the OOM
> + * b) multiple reclaimers are racing and so the first round
> + * should be retried
> */
> - __shrink_zone(zone, sc, false);
> + if (mem_cgroup_all_within_guarantee(sc->target_mem_cgroup))
> + honor_guarantee = false;
> }
> }
>
> --
> 2.0.0.rc0
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: email@kvack.org

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs