From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08183ECAAA1 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229824AbiJ1FKU (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:10:20 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33888 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229535AbiJ1FKH (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:10:07 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E7D92B636; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 22:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29S4g4Gj029904; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:43 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=mC2HFC3gAoqIozZrCZ1GBd6I46486FF/GbrfZbHoDJs=; b=sORyH0u7NNmXJ2xhjH2ho9CGfQC2uXTTsV6CCo/wUNjh93gWjsOOergxQFNQ0dGJ+brs Sk6ThQx3eCPe0YtR0s/fvl2YLEW4Pb095jSEbrVjXEG5wJ0NVIwkCI7GCLEz/QetJtYF q9Yn6cvxHNMTsFgojdXw7jBRBgY89a3aXoRMsdeAoQFrmP0FyI+/ndrpcT/6Fg8k6+Az FNLGrmbdQSSW+qhAmSWP9E2Foqa5+MAz3T4g2qPzCD5t+9iL0sZBmVZugSwsMOrwL/NZ tvbr6nv4A2EAS7p1Nq8EIvRDMOF4TR+Fmq40JGckJnJGoGaMGYdweYMIM6DRk0pJrF8O vQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kg89m0tf2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:42 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29S4gBlO030364; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:40 GMT Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kg89m0t8n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:40 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 29S563XT023854; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:36 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kftf1s332-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:36 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 29S59YYd2228778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:34 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50367A4040; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8ABBA404D; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.109.205.170] (unknown [9.109.205.170]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 05:09:31 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <7b5f533d-4b2e-b45b-ee42-5e1cc3e8a279@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 10:39:31 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion Content-Language: en-US To: Yang Shi , Feng Tang Cc: "Hocko, Michal" , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Zefan Li , Waiman Long , "Huang, Ying" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Hansen, Dave" , "Chen, Tim C" , "Yin, Fengwei" References: <20221026074343.6517-1-feng.tang@intel.com> From: Aneesh Kumar K V In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: ASFUWSHe5MjllGjLmOisvHNof7sieJp4 X-Proofpoint-GUID: BJChHJSB3LO7Isg854w_XwBD54gS9x6z X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-28_02,2022-10-27_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2210170000 definitions=main-2210280031 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/27/22 11:25 PM, Yang Shi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 12:12 AM Feng Tang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:57:52AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Michal Hocko wrote: >> [...] >>>>>> This all can get quite expensive so the primary question is, does the >>>>>> existing behavior generates any real issues or is this more of an >>>>>> correctness exercise? I mean it certainly is not great to demote to an >>>>>> incompatible numa node but are there any reasonable configurations when >>>>>> the demotion target node is explicitly excluded from memory >>>>>> policy/cpuset? >>>>> >>>>> We haven't got customer report on this, but there are quite some customers >>>>> use cpuset to bind some specific memory nodes to a docker (You've helped >>>>> us solve a OOM issue in such cases), so I think it's practical to respect >>>>> the cpuset semantics as much as we can. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is definitely better to respect cpusets and all local memory >>>> policies. There is no dispute there. The thing is whether this is really >>>> worth it. How often would cpusets (or policies in general) go actively >>>> against demotion nodes (i.e. exclude those nodes from their allowes node >>>> mask)? >>>> >>>> I can imagine workloads which wouldn't like to get their memory demoted >>>> for some reason but wouldn't it be more practical to tell that >>>> explicitly (e.g. via prctl) rather than configuring cpusets/memory >>>> policies explicitly? >>>> >>>>> Your concern about the expensive cost makes sense! Some raw ideas are: >>>>> * if the shrink_folio_list is called by kswapd, the folios come from >>>>> the same per-memcg lruvec, so only one check is enough >>>>> * if not from kswapd, like called form madvise or DAMON code, we can >>>>> save a memcg cache, and if the next folio's memcg is same as the >>>>> cache, we reuse its result. And due to the locality, the real >>>>> check is rarely performed. >>>> >>>> memcg is not the expensive part of the thing. You need to get from page >>>> -> all vmas::vm_policy -> mm -> task::mempolicy >>> >>> Yeah, on the same page with Michal. Figuring out mempolicy from page >>> seems quite expensive and the correctness can't be guranteed since the >>> mempolicy could be set per-thread and the mm->task depends on >>> CONFIG_MEMCG so it doesn't work for !CONFIG_MEMCG. >> >> Yes, you are right. Our "working" psudo code for mem policy looks like >> what Michal mentioned, and it can't work for all cases, but try to >> enforce it whenever possible: >> >> static bool __check_mpol_demotion(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >> unsigned long addr, void *arg) >> { >> bool *skip_demotion = arg; >> struct mempolicy *mpol; >> int nid, dnid; >> bool ret = true; >> >> mpol = __get_vma_policy(vma, addr); >> if (!mpol) { >> struct task_struct *task; >> if (vma->vm_mm) >> task = vma->vm_mm->owner; > > But this task may not be the task you want IIUC. For example, the > process has two threads, A and B. They have different mempolicy. The > vmscan is trying to demote a page belonging to thread A, but the task > may point to thread B, so you actually get the wrong mempolicy IIUC. > But if we swap out this page and fault back in via thread B the page would get allocated as per thread B mempolicy. So if we demote based on thread B policy are we breaking anything? -aneesh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aneesh Kumar K V Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 10:39:31 +0530 Message-ID: <7b5f533d-4b2e-b45b-ee42-5e1cc3e8a279@linux.ibm.com> References: <20221026074343.6517-1-feng.tang@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=mC2HFC3gAoqIozZrCZ1GBd6I46486FF/GbrfZbHoDJs=; b=sORyH0u7NNmXJ2xhjH2ho9CGfQC2uXTTsV6CCo/wUNjh93gWjsOOergxQFNQ0dGJ+brs Sk6ThQx3eCPe0YtR0s/fvl2YLEW4Pb095jSEbrVjXEG5wJ0NVIwkCI7GCLEz/QetJtYF q9Yn6cvxHNMTsFgojdXw7jBRBgY89a3aXoRMsdeAoQFrmP0FyI+/ndrpcT/6Fg8k6+Az FNLGrmbdQSSW+qhAmSWP9E2Foqa5+MAz3T4g2qPzCD5t+9iL0sZBmVZugSwsMOrwL/NZ tvbr6nv4A2EAS7p1Nq8EIvRDMOF4TR+Fmq40JGckJnJGoGaMGYdweYMIM6DRk0pJrF8O vQ== Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Yang Shi , Feng Tang Cc: "Hocko, Michal" , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Zefan Li , Waiman Long , "Huang, Ying" , "linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "Hansen, Dave" , "Chen, Tim C" , "Yin, Fengwei" On 10/27/22 11:25 PM, Yang Shi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 12:12 AM Feng Tang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:57:52AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Michal Hocko wrote: >> [...] >>>>>> This all can get quite expensive so the primary question is, does the >>>>>> existing behavior generates any real issues or is this more of an >>>>>> correctness exercise? I mean it certainly is not great to demote to an >>>>>> incompatible numa node but are there any reasonable configurations when >>>>>> the demotion target node is explicitly excluded from memory >>>>>> policy/cpuset? >>>>> >>>>> We haven't got customer report on this, but there are quite some customers >>>>> use cpuset to bind some specific memory nodes to a docker (You've helped >>>>> us solve a OOM issue in such cases), so I think it's practical to respect >>>>> the cpuset semantics as much as we can. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is definitely better to respect cpusets and all local memory >>>> policies. There is no dispute there. The thing is whether this is really >>>> worth it. How often would cpusets (or policies in general) go actively >>>> against demotion nodes (i.e. exclude those nodes from their allowes node >>>> mask)? >>>> >>>> I can imagine workloads which wouldn't like to get their memory demoted >>>> for some reason but wouldn't it be more practical to tell that >>>> explicitly (e.g. via prctl) rather than configuring cpusets/memory >>>> policies explicitly? >>>> >>>>> Your concern about the expensive cost makes sense! Some raw ideas are: >>>>> * if the shrink_folio_list is called by kswapd, the folios come from >>>>> the same per-memcg lruvec, so only one check is enough >>>>> * if not from kswapd, like called form madvise or DAMON code, we can >>>>> save a memcg cache, and if the next folio's memcg is same as the >>>>> cache, we reuse its result. And due to the locality, the real >>>>> check is rarely performed. >>>> >>>> memcg is not the expensive part of the thing. You need to get from page >>>> -> all vmas::vm_policy -> mm -> task::mempolicy >>> >>> Yeah, on the same page with Michal. Figuring out mempolicy from page >>> seems quite expensive and the correctness can't be guranteed since the >>> mempolicy could be set per-thread and the mm->task depends on >>> CONFIG_MEMCG so it doesn't work for !CONFIG_MEMCG. >> >> Yes, you are right. Our "working" psudo code for mem policy looks like >> what Michal mentioned, and it can't work for all cases, but try to >> enforce it whenever possible: >> >> static bool __check_mpol_demotion(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >> unsigned long addr, void *arg) >> { >> bool *skip_demotion = arg; >> struct mempolicy *mpol; >> int nid, dnid; >> bool ret = true; >> >> mpol = __get_vma_policy(vma, addr); >> if (!mpol) { >> struct task_struct *task; >> if (vma->vm_mm) >> task = vma->vm_mm->owner; > > But this task may not be the task you want IIUC. For example, the > process has two threads, A and B. They have different mempolicy. The > vmscan is trying to demote a page belonging to thread A, but the task > may point to thread B, so you actually get the wrong mempolicy IIUC. > But if we swap out this page and fault back in via thread B the page would get allocated as per thread B mempolicy. So if we demote based on thread B policy are we breaking anything? -aneesh