From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:49:30 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140502164930.GP3446@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140502155805.GO23420@cmpxchg.org> On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id) > > > > return mem_cgroup_from_id(id); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > + * mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible - checks whether given memcg is eligible for the > > > > + * reclaim > > > > + * @memcg: target memcg for the reclaim > > > > + * @root: root of the reclaim hierarchy (null for the global reclaim) > > > > + * > > > > + * The given group is reclaimable if it is above its low limit and the same > > > > + * applies for all parents up the hierarchy until root (including). > > > > + */ > > > > +bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > > > + struct mem_cgroup *root) > > > > > > Could you please rename this to something that is more descriptive in > > > the reclaim callsite? How about mem_cgroup_within_low_limit()? > > > > I have intentionally used somethig that is not low_limit specific. The > > generic reclaim code does't have to care about the reason why a memcg is > > not reclaimable. I agree that having follow_low_limit paramter explicit > > and mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible not is messy. So something should be > > renamed. I would probably go with s@follow_low_limit@check_reclaim_eligible@ > > but I do not have a strong preference. > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > > > index c1cd99a5074b..0f428158254e 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > [...] > > > > +static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (!__shrink_zone(zone, sc, true)) { > > > > + /* > > > > + * First round of reclaim didn't find anything to reclaim > > > > + * because of low limit protection so try again and ignore > > > > + * the low limit this time. > > > > + */ > > > > + __shrink_zone(zone, sc, false); > > > > + } > > So I don't think this can work as it is, because we are not actually > changing priority levels yet. __shrink_zone returns with 0 only if the whole hierarchy is is under low limit. This means that they are over-committed and it doesn't make much sense to play with priority. Low limit reclaimability is independent on the priority. > It will give up on the guarantees of bigger groups way before smaller > groups are even seriously looked at. How would that happen? Those (smaller) groups would get reclaimed and we wouldn't fallback. Or am I missing your point? > > > I would actually prefer not having a second round here, and make the > > > low limit behave more like mlock memory. If there is no reclaimable > > > memory, go OOM. > > > > This was done in my previous attempt and I prefer OOM myself but it is > > also true that starting with a more relaxed limit and adding an > > option for hard guarantee later when we have a clear usecase is a better > > approach. Although I can see potential in go-oom-rather-than-reclaim > > configurations, usecases I am primarily interested in won't overcommit on > > low_limit. > > > > That being said, I like the idea of having the hard guarantee but I also > > think it should be configurable. I can post those patches in this thread > > but I feel it is too early as nobody has explicitly asked for this yet. > > As per above, this makes the semantics so much more fishy. When > exactly do we stop honoring the guarantees in the process? When the reclaimed hierarchy is bellow low_limit. In other words when we would go and OOM without fallback. > This is not even guarantees anymore, but rather another reclaim > prioritization scheme with best-effort semantics. That went over > horribly with soft limits, and I don't want to repeat this. > > Overcommitting on guarantees makes no sense, and you even agree you > are not interested in it. We also agree that we can always add a knob > later on to change semantics when an actual usecase presents itself, > so why not start with the clear and simple semantics, and the simpler > implementation? So you are really preferring an OOM instead? That was the original implementation posted at the end of last year and some people had concerns about it. This is the primary reason I came up with a weaker version which fallbacks rather than OOM. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:49:30 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140502164930.GP3446@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140502155805.GO23420@cmpxchg.org> On Fri 02-05-14 11:58:05, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:36:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > > @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id) > > > > return mem_cgroup_from_id(id); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > + * mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible - checks whether given memcg is eligible for the > > > > + * reclaim > > > > + * @memcg: target memcg for the reclaim > > > > + * @root: root of the reclaim hierarchy (null for the global reclaim) > > > > + * > > > > + * The given group is reclaimable if it is above its low limit and the same > > > > + * applies for all parents up the hierarchy until root (including). > > > > + */ > > > > +bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > > > > + struct mem_cgroup *root) > > > > > > Could you please rename this to something that is more descriptive in > > > the reclaim callsite? How about mem_cgroup_within_low_limit()? > > > > I have intentionally used somethig that is not low_limit specific. The > > generic reclaim code does't have to care about the reason why a memcg is > > not reclaimable. I agree that having follow_low_limit paramter explicit > > and mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible not is messy. So something should be > > renamed. I would probably go with s@follow_low_limit@check_reclaim_eligible@ > > but I do not have a strong preference. > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > > > index c1cd99a5074b..0f428158254e 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > [...] > > > > +static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (!__shrink_zone(zone, sc, true)) { > > > > + /* > > > > + * First round of reclaim didn't find anything to reclaim > > > > + * because of low limit protection so try again and ignore > > > > + * the low limit this time. > > > > + */ > > > > + __shrink_zone(zone, sc, false); > > > > + } > > So I don't think this can work as it is, because we are not actually > changing priority levels yet. __shrink_zone returns with 0 only if the whole hierarchy is is under low limit. This means that they are over-committed and it doesn't make much sense to play with priority. Low limit reclaimability is independent on the priority. > It will give up on the guarantees of bigger groups way before smaller > groups are even seriously looked at. How would that happen? Those (smaller) groups would get reclaimed and we wouldn't fallback. Or am I missing your point? > > > I would actually prefer not having a second round here, and make the > > > low limit behave more like mlock memory. If there is no reclaimable > > > memory, go OOM. > > > > This was done in my previous attempt and I prefer OOM myself but it is > > also true that starting with a more relaxed limit and adding an > > option for hard guarantee later when we have a clear usecase is a better > > approach. Although I can see potential in go-oom-rather-than-reclaim > > configurations, usecases I am primarily interested in won't overcommit on > > low_limit. > > > > That being said, I like the idea of having the hard guarantee but I also > > think it should be configurable. I can post those patches in this thread > > but I feel it is too early as nobody has explicitly asked for this yet. > > As per above, this makes the semantics so much more fishy. When > exactly do we stop honoring the guarantees in the process? When the reclaimed hierarchy is bellow low_limit. In other words when we would go and OOM without fallback. > This is not even guarantees anymore, but rather another reclaim > prioritization scheme with best-effort semantics. That went over > horribly with soft limits, and I don't want to repeat this. > > Overcommitting on guarantees makes no sense, and you even agree you > are not interested in it. We also agree that we can always add a knob > later on to change semantics when an actual usecase presents itself, > so why not start with the clear and simple semantics, and the simpler > implementation? So you are really preferring an OOM instead? That was the original implementation posted at the end of last year and some people had concerns about it. This is the primary reason I came up with a weaker version which fallbacks rather than OOM. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-02 16:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 196+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-04-28 12:26 [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 22:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 22:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 9:36 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 9:36 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 12:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 12:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 13:01 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 13:01 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 14:15 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 14:15 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:04 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:04 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:34 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:34 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:48 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:48 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:58 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:58 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:58 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:58 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 16:49 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2014-05-02 16:49 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 22:00 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 22:00 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-05 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-05 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-19 16:18 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-19 16:18 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:15 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 15:15 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 16:08 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 16:08 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 13:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 15:21 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 15:21 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 16:12 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 16:12 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 18:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 18:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 19:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/4] memcg: Allow setting low_limit Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] memcg, doc: clarify global vs. limit reclaims Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 23:03 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 23:03 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 9:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 9:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:56 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:56 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] memcg: Document memory.low_limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 22:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 22:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 9:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 9:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim Roman Gushchin 2014-04-28 15:46 ` Roman Gushchin 2014-04-29 7:42 ` Greg Thelen 2014-04-29 7:42 ` Greg Thelen 2014-04-29 10:50 ` Roman Gushchin 2014-04-29 10:50 ` Roman Gushchin 2014-04-29 12:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-29 12:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 21:52 ` Andrew Morton 2014-04-30 21:52 ` Andrew Morton 2014-04-30 22:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 22:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 12:03 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 12:03 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 21:59 ` Andrew Morton 2014-04-30 21:59 ` Andrew Morton 2014-05-02 11:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 11:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 12:10 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 12:10 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 13:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 13:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 15:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 15:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 15:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 15:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 16:33 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 16:33 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-03 11:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 11:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 14:22 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-03 14:22 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-04 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-04 15:44 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 15:44 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 19:18 ` Hugh Dickins 2014-06-04 19:18 ` Hugh Dickins 2014-06-04 21:45 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 21:45 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 14:51 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 14:51 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 18:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 18:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-06 14:44 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:44 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: allow OOM if no memcg is eligible during direct reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 15:29 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-06 15:29 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-06 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-06 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-09 8:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-09 8:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-09 13:54 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-09 13:54 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-09 22:52 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-09 22:52 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-10 16:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-10 16:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-10 22:16 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-10 22:16 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-11 7:57 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 7:57 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: allow OOM if no memcg is eligible during direct reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow guarantee reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:36 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 15:36 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 13:56 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 13:56 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 14:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 14:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 16:17 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-12 16:17 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 12:59 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 12:59 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 13:57 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 13:57 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:04 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:04 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:12 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:12 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:29 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:29 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:40 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:40 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-12 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-16 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: allow OOM if no memcg is eligible during direct reclaim Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 15:20 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 16:14 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 16:14 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 12:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit reclaim Tejun Heo 2014-06-11 12:31 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-11 14:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 14:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-11 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim Tejun Heo 2014-06-05 19:36 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-05 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 15:43 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 15:43 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:46 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:46 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 16:17 ` Greg Thelen 2014-05-28 16:17 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-03 11:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 11:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 14:01 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-03 14:44 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
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=20140502164930.GP3446@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@suse.cz \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=gthelen@google.com \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=hughd@google.com \ --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=klamm@yandex-team.ru \ --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=tj@kernel.org \ --cc=walken@google.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.