From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shmem, memcg: enable memcg aware shrinker
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:17:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xr937dwn454y.fsf@gthelen.svl.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkq84qtOqfvP5SmPoAyL+Pyffd9K3108AOYk5yKF03jBmw@mail.gmail.com>
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:22 PM Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since v4.19 commit b0dedc49a2da ("mm/vmscan.c: iterate only over charged
>> shrinkers during memcg shrink_slab()") a memcg aware shrinker is only
>> called when the per-memcg per-node shrinker_map indicates that the
>> shrinker may have objects to release to the memcg and node.
>>
>> shmem_unused_huge_count and shmem_unused_huge_scan support the per-tmpfs
>> shrinker which advertises per memcg and numa awareness. The shmem
>> shrinker releases memory by splitting hugepages that extend beyond
>> i_size.
>>
>> Shmem does not currently set bits in shrinker_map. So, starting with
>> b0dedc49a2da, memcg reclaim avoids calling the shmem shrinker under
>> pressure. This leads to undeserved memcg OOM kills.
>> Example that reliably sees memcg OOM kill in unpatched kernel:
>> FS=/tmp/fs
>> CONTAINER=/cgroup/memory/tmpfs_shrinker
>> mkdir -p $FS
>> mount -t tmpfs -o huge=always nodev $FS
>> # Create 1000 MB container, which shouldn't suffer OOM.
>> mkdir $CONTAINER
>> echo 1000M > $CONTAINER/memory.limit_in_bytes
>> echo $BASHPID >> $CONTAINER/cgroup.procs
>> # Create 4000 files. Ideally each file uses 4k data page + a little
>> # metadata. Assume 8k total per-file, 32MB (4000*8k) should easily
>> # fit within container's 1000 MB. But if data pages use 2MB
>> # hugepages (due to aggressive huge=always) then files consume 8GB,
>> # which hits memcg 1000 MB limit.
>> for i in {1..4000}; do
>> echo . > $FS/$i
>> done
>
> It looks all the inodes which have tail THP beyond i_size are on one
> single list, then the shrinker actually just splits the first
> nr_to_scan inodes. But since the list is not memcg aware, so it seems
> it may split the THPs which are not charged to the victim memcg and
> the victim memcg still may suffer from pre-mature oom, right?
Correct. shmem_unused_huge_shrink() is not memcg aware. In response to
memcg pressure it will split the post-i_size tails of nr_to_scan tmpfs
inodes regardless of if they're charged to the under-pressure memcg.
do_shrink_slab() looks like it'll repeatedly call
shmem_unused_huge_shrink(). So it will split tails of many inodes. So
I think it'll avoid the oom by over shrinking. This is not ideal. But
it seems better than undeserved oom kill.
I think the solution (as Kirill Tkhai suggested) a memcg-aware index
would solve both:
1) avoid premature oom by registering shrinker to responding to memcg
pressure
2) avoid shrinking/splitting inodes unrelated to the under-pressure
memcg
I can certainly look into that (thanks Kirill for the pointers). In the
short term I'm still interested in avoiding premature OOMs with the
original thread (i.e. restore pre-4.19 behavior to shmem shrinker for
memcg pressure). I plan to test and repost v2.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-04 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-01 3:22 [PATCH] shmem, memcg: enable memcg aware shrinker Greg Thelen
2020-06-01 11:05 ` Kirill Tkhai
2020-06-01 21:48 ` Greg Thelen
2020-06-02 8:28 ` Kirill Tkhai
2020-06-01 22:59 ` Yang Shi
2020-06-04 8:17 ` Greg Thelen [this message]
2020-06-05 22:05 ` Yang Shi
2020-06-08 4:49 ` Hugh Dickins
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=xr937dwn454y.fsf@gthelen.svl.corp.google.com \
--to=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.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).