Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim

Michal Hocko
2014-06-03T11:07:48Z

On Wed 28-05-14 12:33:35, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:54:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 28-05-14 11:28:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:21:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 28-05-14 09:49:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 02:10:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > > My main motivation for the weaker model is that it is hard to see all
> > > > > > the corner case right now and once we hit them I would like to see a
> > > > > > graceful fallback rather than fatal action like OOM killer. Besides that
> > > > > > the usaceses I am mostly interested in are OK with fallback when the
> > > > > > alternative would be OOM killer. I also feel that introducing a knob
> > > > > > with a weaker semantic which can be made stronger later is a sensible
> > > > > > way to go.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can't make it stronger, but we can make it weaker.
> > > >
> > > > Why cannot we make it stronger by a knob/configuration option?
> > >
> > > Why can't we make it weaker by a knob?
> >
> > I haven't said we couldn't.
> >
> > > Why should we design the default for unforeseeable cornercases
> > > rather than make the default make sense for existing cases and give
> > > cornercases a fallback once they show up?
> >
> > Sure we can do that but it would be little bit lame IMO. We are
> > promising something and once we find out it doesn't work we will make
> > it weaker to workaround that.
> >
> > Besides that the default should reflect the usecases, no? Do we have any
> > use case for the hard guarantee?
>
> You're adding an extra layer of complexity so the burden of proof is
> on you. Do we have any usecases that require a graceful fallback?

As far as I am aware nobody (except for google) really loves OOM
killer because there is nothing you can do once it strikes (in the
global/cpuset memory case). You have no choice for clean up etc...

If we consider that memcg and its limits are not zone aware while the
page allocator and reclaim are zone oriented then I can see a problem
of unexpected reclaim failure although there is no over commit on the
low_limit globally. And we do not have in-kernel effective measures to
mitigate this inherent problem. At least not now and I am afraid it is
a long route to have something that would work reasonably well in such
cases.

So to me it sounds more responsible to promise only as much as we can
handle. I think that fallback mode is not crippling the semantic of
the knob as it triggers only for limit overcommit or strange corner
cases. We have agreed that we do not care about the first one and
handling the later one by potentially fatal action doesn't sounds very
user friendly to me.

For example, if we get back to the NUMA case then a graceful fallback
allows to migrate offending tasks off the node and reduce reclaim on the
protected group. This can be done simply by watching the breach counter
and act upon it. On the other hand if the default policy is OOM then
the possible actions are much more reduced (action would have to be
pro-active with hopes that they are faster than OOM).

Yet if somebody really wants to overcommit on the low_limit and get OOM
rather than get reclaimed then I can see some sense in it and would be
willing to add a knob to set allow this behavior. But that is a
different situation because the configuration will be explicit and
administrator aware of the consequences and is willing to accept them.

> > > > > Stronger is the simpler definition, it's simpler code,
> > > >
> > > > The code is not really that much simpler. The one you have posted will
> > > > not work I am afraid. I haven't tested it yet but I remember I had to do
> > > > some tweaks to the reclaim path to not end up in an endless loop in the
> > > > direct reclaim (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=138677140828678&w=2 and
> > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=138677141328682&w=2).
> > >
> > > That's just a result of do_try_to_free_pages being stupid and using
> > > its own zonelist loop to check reclaimability by duplicating all the
> > > checks instead of properly using returned state of shrink_zones().
> > > Something that would be worth fixing regardless of memcg guarantees.
> > >
> > > Or maybe we could add the guaranteed lru pages to sc->nr_scanned.
> >
> > Fixes might be different than what I was proposing previously. I was
> > merely pointing out that removing the retry loop is not sufficient.
>
> No, you were claiming that the hard limit implementation is not
> simpler. It is.

Well, there are things you have to check anyway - short loops due to
racing reclaimers and quick priority drop down or even pre-mature OOM
in direct reclaim paths. kswapd shoudn't loop endlessly if it cannot
balance the zone because all groups are withing limit on the node.
So I fail to see it as that much simpler.

Anyway, the complexity of the retry&ignore loop doesn't seem to be
significant enough to dictate the default behavior. We should go with
the one which makes the most sense for users.

> > > > > your usecases are fine with it,
> > > >
> > > > my usecases do not overcommit low_limit on the available memory, so far
> > > > so good, but once we hit a corner cases when limits are set properly but
> > > > we end up not being able to reclaim anybody in a zone then OOM sounds
> > > > too brutal.
> > >
> > > What cornercases?
> >
> > I have mentioned a case where NUMA placement and specific node bindings
> > interfering with other allocators can end up in unreclaimable zones.
> > While you might disagree about the setup I have seen different things
> > done out there.
>
> If you have real usecases that might depend on weak guarantees, please
> make a rational argument for them and don't just handwave.

As I've said above. Usecases I am interested in do not overcommit on
low_limit. The limit is used to protect group(s) from memory pressure
from other loads which are running on the same machine. Primarily
because the working set is quite expensive to build up. If we really
hit a corner case and OOM would trigger then the whole state has to be
rebuilt and that is much more expensive than ephemeral reclaim.

> I know that there is every conceivable configuration out there, but
> it's unreasonable to design new features around the requirement of
> setups that are questionable to begin with.

I do agree but on the other hand I think we shouldn't ignore inherent
problems which might lead to problems mentioned above and provide an
interface which doesn't cause an unexpected behavior.

> > Besides that the reclaim logic is complex enough and history thought me
> > that little buggers are hidden at places where you do not expect them.
>
> So we introduce user interfaces designed around the fact that we don't
> trust our own code anymore?

No, we are talking about inherent problems here. And my experience
taught me to be careful and corner cases tend to show up in the real
life situations.

> There is being prudent and then there is cargo cult programming.
>
> > So call me a chicken but I would sleep calmer if we start weaker and add
> > an additional guarantees later when somebody really insists on rseeing
> > an OOM rather than get reclaimed.
> > The proposed counter can tell us more how good we are at not touching
> > groups with the limit and we can eventually debug those corner cases
> > without affecting the loads too much.
>
> More realistically, potential bugs are never reported with a silent
> counter, which further widens the gap between our assumptions on how
> the VM behaves and what happens in production.

OOM driven reports are arguably worse and without easy workaround on the
other hand.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs