From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] mm: memcg: charge memcg percpu memory to the parent cgroup
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:47:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200811144754.GA45201@blackbook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200807043717.GA1231562@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2436 bytes --]
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 09:37:17PM -0700, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> In general, yes. But in this case I think it wouldn't be a good idea:
> most often cgroups are created by a centralized daemon (systemd),
> which is usually located in the root cgroup. Even if it's located not in
> the root cgroup, limiting it's memory will likely affect the whole system,
> even if only one specific limit was reached.
The generic scheme would be (assuming the no internal process
constraint, in the root too)
` root or delegated root
` manager-cgroup (systemd, docker, ...)
` [aggregation group(s)]
` job-group-1
` ...
` job-group-n
> If there is a containerized workload, which creates sub-cgroups,
> charging it's parent cgroup is perfectly effective.
No dispute about this in either approaches.
> And the opposite, if we'll charge the cgroup of a process, who created
> a cgroup, we'll not cover the most common case: systemd creating
> cgroups for all services in the system.
What I mean is that systemd should be charged for the cgroup creation.
Or more generally, any container/cgroup manager should be charged.
Consider a leak when it wouldn't remove spent cgroups, IMO the effect
(throttling, reclaim) should be exercised on such a culprit.
I don't think the existing workload (job-group-i above) should
unnecessarily suffer when only manager is acting up. Is that different
from your idea?
> Right, but it's quite unusual for tasks from one cgroup to create sub-cgroups
> in completely different cgroup. In this particular case there are tons of other
> ways how a task from C00 can hurt C1.
I agree with that.
If I haven't overlooked anything, this should be first case when
cgroup-related structures are accounted (please correct me).
So this is setting a precendent, if others show useful to be accounted
in the future too. I'm thinking about cpu_cgroup_css_alloc() that can
also allocate a lot (with big CPU count). The current approach would lead
situations where matching cpu and memory csses needn't to exist and that
would need special handling.
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 09:16:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > These week-old issues appear to be significant. Roman? Or someone
> > else?
Despite my concerns, I don't think this is fundamental and can't be
changed later so it doesn't prevent the inclusion in 5.9 RC1.
Regards,
Michal
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-11 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-23 18:45 [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: memcg accounting of percpu memory Roman Gushchin
2020-06-23 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] percpu: return number of released bytes from pcpu_free_area() Roman Gushchin
2020-06-24 0:58 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-06-23 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] mm: memcg/percpu: account percpu memory to memory cgroups Roman Gushchin
2020-06-24 1:25 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-06-23 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] mm: memcg/percpu: per-memcg percpu memory statistics Roman Gushchin
2020-06-24 1:35 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-08-11 15:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-06-23 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] mm: memcg: charge memcg percpu memory to the parent cgroup Roman Gushchin
2020-06-24 1:40 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-06-24 1:49 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-07-29 17:10 ` Michal Koutný
2020-08-07 4:16 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-07 4:37 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-08-10 19:33 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-08-11 14:47 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2020-08-11 16:55 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-08-11 18:32 ` Michal Koutný
2020-08-11 19:32 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-08-12 16:28 ` Michal Koutný
2020-08-11 15:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-08-11 17:06 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-08-13 9:16 ` Naresh Kamboju
2020-08-13 23:27 ` Stephen Rothwell
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=20200811144754.GA45201@blackbook \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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).