From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF8E0D52A for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705651250; cv=none; b=ZVTu3wqofvonfz/A56TVi+U/wviUEM1pP1CakTFnacoFOqxTUeAjlCI2ChkMt5YQ+sHGpoyfrwWZZLN2sz7nrEtxmpi1cDJwJwK1ptqIU7vUjJtHgX95FC77oiU6wE3M9q2LxGsfPk2q4MYySEEGwcqp7DKI4uywsPsveuPLG5c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705651250; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lCFwSt1h+0zZ+bhtWR1K6DgWMDUvThVRcpsKI+6zjvE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fj6MCTcd7SBAWWROzyB309RU+BXP/q9dw7Pimlc8lprseHjDjjwcjLvlAjWgxxx0p8bM8kjO7liA00oQJ2RdEXEmhAeQ5aL9XiGPL/CkrtClabqhrqK4IqHoQHOIQGNiWGtS4Efs6lS65FwrKyYc7ZPdsXo5UM8k9Q/cQgygW18= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=Tl/co0SH; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=Tl/co0SH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="Tl/co0SH"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="Tl/co0SH" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6A802203C; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:00:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1705651244; h=from:from:reply-to: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=Bn5ufnHpA6Z9dfznXpVhdImFXiNotqxspeRNBGa/t/s=; b=Tl/co0SHQk5Ek/hRvLDHlUdr7CyoF1wFwgMIQoYkkEHLVCPtFcCVdSxgvyJzgue3nf2WwE n2VTmEXZWd19esIA+6d6l+IuZ68tHGqH0N3Q2LvsEHMgOD4u1pRaSoYfIfzzGqIG0Z7kTM NbcHHeQVGPOMxTf2Wx0/w2v7NQqO9xs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1705651244; h=from:from:reply-to: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=Bn5ufnHpA6Z9dfznXpVhdImFXiNotqxspeRNBGa/t/s=; b=Tl/co0SHQk5Ek/hRvLDHlUdr7CyoF1wFwgMIQoYkkEHLVCPtFcCVdSxgvyJzgue3nf2WwE n2VTmEXZWd19esIA+6d6l+IuZ68tHGqH0N3Q2LvsEHMgOD4u1pRaSoYfIfzzGqIG0Z7kTM NbcHHeQVGPOMxTf2Wx0/w2v7NQqO9xs= Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8430E1388C; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id mMZMHSwsqmVaOQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:00:44 +0000 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:00:43 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Kefeng Wang Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, Matthew Wilcox , David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memory: move mem_cgroup_charge() into alloc_anon_folio() Message-ID: References: <20240117103954.2756050-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> 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: Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.43 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; BAYES_SPAM(2.03)[89.10%]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.com:s=susede1]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Score: 2.43 X-Spam-Flag: NO On Fri 19-01-24 10:05:15, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > On 2024/1/18 23:59, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 17-01-24 18:39:54, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > mem_cgroup_charge() uses the GFP flags in a fairly sophisticated way. > > > In addition to checking gfpflags_allow_blocking(), it pays attention > > > to __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL to ensure that processes within > > > this memcg do not exceed their quotas. Using the same GFP flags ensures > > > that we handle large anonymous folios correctly, including falling back > > > to smaller orders when there is plenty of memory available in the system > > > but this memcg is close to its limits. > > > > The changelog is not really clear in the actual problem you are trying > > to fix. Is this pure consistency fix or have you actually seen any > > misbehavior. From the patch I suspect you are interested in THPs much > > more than regular order-0 pages because those are GFP_KERNEL like when > > it comes to charging. THPs have a variety of options on how aggressive > > the allocation should try. From that perspective NORETRY and > > RETRY_MAYFAIL are not all that interesting because costly allocations > > (which THPs are) already do imply MAYFAIL and NORETRY. > > I don't meet actual issue, it founds from code inspection. > > mTHP is introduced by Ryan（19eaf44954df "mm: thp: support allocation of > anonymous multi-size THP")，so we have similar check for mTHP like PMD THP > in alloc_anon_folio(), it will try to allocate large order folio below > PMD_ORDER, and fallback to order-0 folio if fails, meanwhile, > it get GFP flags from vma_thp_gfp_mask() according to user configuration > like PMD THP allocation, so > > 1) the memory charge failure check should be moved into fallback > logical, because it will make us to allocated as much as possible large > order folio, although the memcg's memory usage is close to its limits. > > 2) using seem GFP flags for allocate/mem charge, be consistent with PMD > THP firstly, in addition, according to GFP flag returned for > vma_thp_gfp_mask(), GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT could make us skip direct reclaim, > _GFP_NORETRY will make us skip mem_cgroup_oom and won't kill > any progress from large order folio charging. OK, makes sense. Please turn that into the changelog. > > GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT is more interesting though because those do not dive > > into the direct reclaim at all. With the current code they will reclaim > > charges to free up the space for the allocated THP page and that defeats > > the light mode. I have a vague recollection of preparing a patch to > > We are interesting to GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT and _GFP_NORETRY as mentioned > above. if mTHP can be smaller than COSTLY_ORDER then you are correct and NORETRY makes a difference. Please mention that in the changelog as well. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs