From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 9F00642373; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="TDWSr3G5" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2411FC433C7; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:05:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1702908339; bh=Xu+RYb+e/6QLP5YBaU8V58Pyi0blE7tO9j4AsdHj58M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TDWSr3G5wd+JMFlND/CRTJO2LVkKZUN5Q7Rp3vvUUiRZ/YwD4Tadhu9mVcVDZi/k6 UDMNQeO7/dwO1I6D11ovuRvSs5TAJmQmuHwnI7+aNjsbbM7uEu+1jz3CIapiSdgVi2 v25FSGlkKJSDkMIT/z2WPz8flvFsZriYLu5yPSak= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , patches@lists.linux.dev, Yu Zhao , "T.J. Mercier" , Charan Teja Kalla , Hillf Danton , Jaroslav Pulchart , Kairui Song , Kalesh Singh , Andrew Morton Subject: [PATCH 6.6 140/166] mm/mglru: reclaim offlined memcgs harder Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:51:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20231218135111.371534529@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: <20231218135104.927894164@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20231218135104.927894164@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.67 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Yu Zhao commit 4376807bf2d5371c3e00080c972be568c3f8a7d1 upstream. In the effort to reduce zombie memcgs [1], it was discovered that the memcg LRU doesn't apply enough pressure on offlined memcgs. Specifically, instead of rotating them to the tail of the current generation (MEMCG_LRU_TAIL) for a second attempt, it moves them to the next generation (MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG) after the first attempt. Not applying enough pressure on offlined memcgs can cause them to build up, and this can be particularly harmful to memory-constrained systems. On Pixel 8 Pro, launching apps for 50 cycles: Before After Change Zombie memcgs 45 35 -22% [1] https://lore.kernel.org/CABdmKX2M6koq4Q0Cmp_-=wbP0Qa190HdEGGaHfxNS05gAkUtPA@mail.gmail.com/ Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231208061407.2125867-4-yuzhao@google.com Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists") Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao Reported-by: T.J. Mercier Tested-by: T.J. Mercier Cc: Charan Teja Kalla Cc: Hillf Danton Cc: Jaroslav Pulchart Cc: Kairui Song Cc: Kalesh Singh Cc: Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- include/linux/mmzone.h | 8 ++++---- mm/vmscan.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h @@ -519,10 +519,10 @@ void lru_gen_look_around(struct page_vma * 1. Exceeding the soft limit, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_HEAD; * 2. The first attempt to reclaim a memcg below low, which triggers * MEMCG_LRU_TAIL; - * 3. The first attempt to reclaim a memcg below reclaimable size threshold, - * which triggers MEMCG_LRU_TAIL; - * 4. The second attempt to reclaim a memcg below reclaimable size threshold, - * which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; + * 3. The first attempt to reclaim a memcg offlined or below reclaimable size + * threshold, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_TAIL; + * 4. The second attempt to reclaim a memcg offlined or below reclaimable size + * threshold, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; * 5. Attempting to reclaim a memcg below min, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; * 6. Finishing the aging on the eviction path, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; * 7. Offlining a memcg, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_OLD. --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -5291,7 +5291,12 @@ static bool should_run_aging(struct lruv } /* try to scrape all its memory if this memcg was deleted */ - *nr_to_scan = mem_cgroup_online(memcg) ? (total >> sc->priority) : total; + if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg)) { + *nr_to_scan = total; + return false; + } + + *nr_to_scan = total >> sc->priority; /* * The aging tries to be lazy to reduce the overhead, while the eviction @@ -5412,14 +5417,9 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lru bool success; unsigned long scanned = sc->nr_scanned; unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed; - int seg = lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec); struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec); struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec); - /* see the comment on MEMCG_NR_GENS */ - if (!lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc)) - return seg != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL ? MEMCG_LRU_TAIL : MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg); if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg)) @@ -5427,7 +5427,7 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lru if (mem_cgroup_below_low(NULL, memcg)) { /* see the comment on MEMCG_NR_GENS */ - if (seg != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL) + if (lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec) != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL) return MEMCG_LRU_TAIL; memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW); @@ -5443,7 +5443,15 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lru flush_reclaim_state(sc); - return success ? MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG : 0; + if (success && mem_cgroup_online(memcg)) + return MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; + + if (!success && lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc)) + return 0; + + /* one retry if offlined or too small */ + return lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec) != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL ? + MEMCG_LRU_TAIL : MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; } #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG