From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ryan.roberts@arm.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memory: move mem_cgroup_charge() into alloc_anon_folio()
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:00:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZaosK59cRa27K9zW@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c7b1cc8e-c434-4c86-972e-4a105524646c@huawei.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-19 8:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-17 10:39 [PATCH v2] mm: memory: move mem_cgroup_charge() into alloc_anon_folio() Kefeng Wang
2024-01-18 14:49 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-01-18 15:59 ` Michal Hocko
2024-01-19 2:05 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-01-19 8:00 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2024-01-19 12:59 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-01-19 15:46 ` Michal Hocko
2024-01-20 2:13 ` Kefeng Wang
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=ZaosK59cRa27K9zW@tiehlicka \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.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).