From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-172.mta0.migadu.com (out-172.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C400383 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:32:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734049942; cv=none; b=Qhg7KLvaUI5q04T/vfNeaUXt27ETPNYZtbnT2KdJiZVG+ji0N0Ah7B+w6uAvkS3Dj794V0/QK8ibE814+gprWeJpaM3EmYuxkBJuPfZV4l6IRBn1BjqRLQ3uRl/7KsyEw073CoiBTg6jkQc8rC4+t6OslK/pAwGyADCcbAZIQAI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734049942; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BfVTrwEqJVsAzuYSQNr/nFw3NLP4gp9VxIZBVAEU5Kw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ixUCVeHmK1l2pb8DJF80LG7ormeeWcq7n06bVCWzHXz3h/IUim6yrqhoT1MTSDIA73oe1YStkoMhO2fsbkTu9GKTxhP9hgu2N6pxvlh4uKMJcD450oMpSmlFyjziP6/ZOmTtFUxqWcsumDXURvC3olcStuW9WL5wYgfk0BW9Lio= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=lLU7cSnH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="lLU7cSnH" Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:32:11 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1734049936; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gDknTbX0Ls82zv0uHrNtgXqzSCQIM2ghtBvYdeKv+Ws=; b=lLU7cSnHl5hgYCbx0CoAIPaOKjm+s5hEdfw7h7d+6hVK6j9BxfsJjHyh4fT+jSKdtqz9Ky JxNXRsAum8+QyuhJSzw1mIKgOhgqq7N6IPh7bAsgyhXcBDT0H5Dsmajsk+OoauC7Vqnqb9 o3NePYZKtuvcu52Pcoa/rER4oFcj3n8= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Roman Gushchin To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Yosry Ahmed , Rik van Riel , Balbir Singh , Michal Hocko , hakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, Nhat Pham Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: allow exiting tasks to write back data to swap Message-ID: References: <20241212115754.38f798b3@fangorn> <20241212183012.GB1026@cmpxchg.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20241212183012.GB1026@cmpxchg.org> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 01:30:12PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 09:06:25AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 8:58 AM Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > > A task already in exit can get stuck trying to allocate pages, if its > > > cgroup is at the memory.max limit, the cgroup is using zswap, but > > > zswap writeback is enabled, and the remaining memory in the cgroup is > > > not compressible. > > > > > > This seems like an unlikely confluence of events, but it can happen > > > quite easily if a cgroup is OOM killed due to exceeding its memory.max > > > limit, and all the tasks in the cgroup are trying to exit simultaneously. > > > > > > When this happens, it can sometimes take hours for tasks to exit, > > > as they are all trying to squeeze things into zswap to bring the group's > > > memory consumption below memory.max. > > > > > > Allowing these exiting programs to push some memory from their own > > > cgroup into swap allows them to quickly bring the cgroup's memory > > > consumption below memory.max, and exit in seconds rather than hours. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel > > > > Thanks for sending a v2. > > > > I still think maybe this needs to be fixed on the memcg side, at least > > by not making exiting tasks try really hard to reclaim memory to the > > point where this becomes a problem. IIUC there could be other reasons > > why reclaim may take too long, but maybe not as pathological as this > > case to be fair. I will let the memcg maintainers chime in for this. > > > > If there's a fundamental reason why this cannot be fixed on the memcg > > side, I don't object to this change. > > > > Nhat, any objections on your end? I think your fleet workloads were > > the first users of this interface. Does this break their expectations? > > Yes, I don't think we can do this, unfortunately :( There can be a > variety of reasons for why a user might want to prohibit disk swap for > a certain cgroup, and we can't assume it's okay to make exceptions. > > There might also not *be* any disk swap to overflow into after Nhat's > virtual swap patches. Presumably zram would still have the issue too. > > So I'm also inclined to think this needs a reclaim/memcg-side fix. We > have a somewhat tumultous history of policy in that space: > > commit 7775face207922ea62a4e96b9cd45abfdc7b9840 > Author: Tetsuo Handa > Date: Tue Mar 5 15:46:47 2019 -0800 > > memcg: killed threads should not invoke memcg OOM killer > > allowed dying tasks to simply force all charges and move on. This > turned out to be too aggressive; there were instances of exiting, > uncontained memcg tasks causing global OOMs. This lead to that: > > commit a4ebf1b6ca1e011289677239a2a361fde4a88076 > Author: Vasily Averin > Date: Fri Nov 5 13:38:09 2021 -0700 > > memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks > > which reverted the bypass rather thoroughly. Now NO dying tasks, *not > even OOM victims*, can force charges. I am not sure this is correct, > either: > > If we return -ENOMEM to an OOM victim in a fault, the fault handler > will re-trigger OOM, which will find the existing OOM victim and do > nothing, then restart the fault. This is a memory deadlock. The page > allocator gives OOM victims access to reserves for that reason. > > Actually, it looks even worse. For some reason we're not triggering > OOM from dying tasks: > > ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc); > > Even though dying tasks are in no way privileged or allowed to exit > expediently. Why shouldn't they trigger the OOM killer like anybody > else trying to allocate memory? > > As it stands, it seems we have dying tasks getting trapped in an > endless fault->reclaim cycle; with no access to the OOM killer and no > access to reserves. Presumably this is what's going on here? > > I think we want something like this: > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 53db98d2c4a1..be6b6e72bde5 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -1596,11 +1596,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > if (mem_cgroup_margin(memcg) >= (1 << order)) > goto unlock; > > - /* > - * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can > - * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock. > - */ > - ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc); > + ret = out_of_memory(&oc); I like the idea, but at first glance it might reintroduce the problem fixed by 7775face2079 ("memcg: killed threads should not invoke memcg OOM killer").