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

Johannes Weiner
2014-05-02T22:01:14Z

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/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id)
> > > > > return mem_cgroup_from_id(id);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible - checks whether given memcg is eligible for the
> > > > > + * reclaim
> > > > > + * @memcg: target memcg for the reclaim
> > > > > + * @root: root of the reclaim hierarchy (null for the global reclaim)
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * The given group is reclaimable if it is above its low limit and the same
> > > > > + * applies for all parents up the hierarchy until root (including).
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > > > + struct mem_cgroup *root)
> > > >
> > > > Could you please rename this to something that is more descriptive in
> > > > the reclaim callsite? How about mem_cgroup_within_low_limit()?
> > >
> > > I have intentionally used somethig that is not low_limit specific. The
> > > generic reclaim code does't have to care about the reason why a memcg is
> > > not reclaimable. I agree that having follow_low_limit paramter explicit
> > > and mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible not is messy. So something should be
> > > renamed. I would probably go with s@follow_low_limit@check_reclaim_eligible@
> > > but I do not have a strong preference.
> > >
> > > > > 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.

> > > > I would actually prefer not having a second round here, and make the
> > > > low limit behave more like mlock memory. If there is no reclaimable
> > > > memory, go OOM.
> > >
> > > This was done in my previous attempt and I prefer OOM myself but it is
> > > also true that starting with a more relaxed limit and adding an
> > > option for hard guarantee later when we have a clear usecase is a better
> > > approach. Although I can see potential in go-oom-rather-than-reclaim
> > > configurations, usecases I am primarily interested in won't overcommit on
> > > low_limit.
> > >
> > > That being said, I like the idea of having the hard guarantee but I also
> > > think it should be configurable. I can post those patches in this thread
> > > but I feel it is too early as nobody has explicitly asked for this yet.
> >
> > As per above, this makes the semantics so much more fishy. When
> > exactly do we stop honoring the guarantees in the process?
>
> When the reclaimed hierarchy is bellow low_limit. In other words when we
> would go and OOM without fallback.
>
> > This is not even guarantees anymore, but rather another reclaim
> > prioritization scheme with best-effort semantics. That went over
> > horribly with soft limits, and I don't want to repeat this.
> >
> > Overcommitting on guarantees makes no sense, and you even agree you
> > are not interested in it. We also agree that we can always add a knob
> > later on to change semantics when an actual usecase presents itself,
> > so why not start with the clear and simple semantics, and the simpler
> > implementation?
>
> So you are really preferring an OOM instead? That was the original
> implementation posted at the end of last year and some people
> had concerns about it. This is the primary reason I came up with a
> weaker version which fallbacks rather than OOM.

I'll dig through the archives on this then, thanks.