From: akpm@linux-foundation.org
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com
Subject: [patch 020/158] mm: memcontrol: try harder to set a new memory.high
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 17:50:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191201015009.wgTpjuNKo%akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: mm: memcontrol: try harder to set a new memory.high
Setting a memory.high limit below the usage makes almost no effort to
shrink the cgroup to the new target size.
While memory.high is a "soft" limit that isn't supposed to cause OOM
situations, we should still try harder to meet a user request through
persistent reclaim.
For example, after setting a 10M memory.high on an 800M cgroup full of
file cache, the usage shrinks to about 350M:
+ cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current
841568256
+ echo 10M
+ cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current
355729408
This isn't exactly what the user would expect to happen. Setting the
value a few more times eventually whittles the usage down to what we
are asking for:
+ echo 10M
+ cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current
104181760
+ echo 10M
+ cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current
31801344
+ echo 10M
+ cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current
10440704
To improve this, add reclaim retry loops to the memory.high write()
callback, similar to what we do for memory.max, to make a reasonable
effort that the usage meets the requested size after the call returns.
Afterwards, a single write() to memory.high is enough in all but extreme
cases:
+ cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current
841609216
+ echo 10M
+ cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current
10182656
790M is not a reasonable reclaim target to ask of a single reclaim
invocation. And it wouldn't be reasonable to optimize the reclaim code
for it. So asking for the full size but retrying is not a bad choice
here: we express our intent, and benefit if reclaim becomes better at
handling larger requests, but we also acknowledge that some of the
deltas we can encounter in memory_high_write() are just too
ridiculously big for a single reclaim invocation to manage.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191022201518.341216-2-hannes@cmpxchg.org
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c~mm-memcontrol-try-harder-to-set-a-new-memoryhigh
+++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -6091,7 +6091,8 @@ static ssize_t memory_high_write(struct
char *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
{
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(of_css(of));
- unsigned long nr_pages;
+ unsigned int nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
+ bool drained = false;
unsigned long high;
int err;
@@ -6102,12 +6103,29 @@ static ssize_t memory_high_write(struct
memcg->high = high;
- nr_pages = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
- if (nr_pages > high)
- try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages - high,
- GFP_KERNEL, true);
+ for (;;) {
+ unsigned long nr_pages = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
+ unsigned long reclaimed;
+
+ if (nr_pages <= high)
+ break;
+
+ if (signal_pending(current))
+ break;
+
+ if (!drained) {
+ drain_all_stock(memcg);
+ drained = true;
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages - high,
+ GFP_KERNEL, true);
+
+ if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
+ break;
+ }
- memcg_wb_domain_size_changed(memcg);
return nbytes;
}
_
reply other threads:[~2019-12-01 1:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191201015009.wgTpjuNKo%akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mm-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).