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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9385C43381 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8483720851 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732532AbfCAKiW (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 05:38:22 -0500 Received: from relay.sw.ru ([185.231.240.75]:40994 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727492AbfCAKiV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2019 05:38:21 -0500 Received: from [172.16.25.12] by relay.sw.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gzfYO-000469-Ez; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 13:38:08 +0300 From: Andrey Ryabinin Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm/vmscan: try to protect active working set of cgroup from reclaim. To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Rik van Riel , Mel Gorman , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt References: <20190222175825.18657-1-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> <20190222191552.GA15922@cmpxchg.org> Message-ID: <7c915942-6f52-e7a4-b879-e4c99dd65968@virtuozzo.com> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:38:26 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/26/19 3:50 PM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > > > On 2/22/19 10:15 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 08:58:25PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >>> In a presence of more than 1 memory cgroup in the system our reclaim >>> logic is just suck. When we hit memory limit (global or a limit on >>> cgroup with subgroups) we reclaim some memory from all cgroups. >>> This is sucks because, the cgroup that allocates more often always wins. >>> E.g. job that allocates a lot of clean rarely used page cache will push >>> out of memory other jobs with active relatively small all in memory >>> working set. >>> >>> To prevent such situations we have memcg controls like low/max, etc which >>> are supposed to protect jobs or limit them so they to not hurt others. >>> But memory cgroups are very hard to configure right because it requires >>> precise knowledge of the workload which may vary during the execution. >>> E.g. setting memory limit means that job won't be able to use all memory >>> in the system for page cache even if the rest the system is idle. >>> Basically our current scheme requires to configure every single cgroup >>> in the system. >>> >>> I think we can do better. The idea proposed by this patch is to reclaim >>> only inactive pages and only from cgroups that have big >>> (!inactive_is_low()) inactive list. And go back to shrinking active lists >>> only if all inactive lists are low. >> >> Yes, you are absolutely right. >> >> We shouldn't go after active pages as long as there are plenty of >> inactive pages around. That's the global reclaim policy, and we >> currently fail to translate that well to cgrouped systems. >> >> Setting group protections or limits would work around this problem, >> but they're kind of a red herring. We shouldn't ever allow use-once >> streams to push out hot workingsets, that's a bug. >> >>> @@ -2489,6 +2491,10 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, >>> >>> scan >>= sc->priority; >>> >>> + if (!sc->may_shrink_active && inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, >>> + file, memcg, sc, false)) >>> + scan = 0; >>> + >>> /* >>> * If the cgroup's already been deleted, make sure to >>> * scrape out the remaining cache. >>> @@ -2733,6 +2739,7 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) >>> struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state; >>> unsigned long nr_reclaimed, nr_scanned; >>> bool reclaimable = false; >>> + bool retry; >>> >>> do { >>> struct mem_cgroup *root = sc->target_mem_cgroup; >>> @@ -2742,6 +2749,8 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) >>> }; >>> struct mem_cgroup *memcg; >>> >>> + retry = false; >>> + >>> memset(&sc->nr, 0, sizeof(sc->nr)); >>> >>> nr_reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed; >>> @@ -2813,6 +2822,13 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) >>> } >>> } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root, memcg, &reclaim))); >>> >>> + if ((sc->nr_scanned - nr_scanned) == 0 && >>> + !sc->may_shrink_active) { >>> + sc->may_shrink_active = 1; >>> + retry = true; >>> + continue; >>> + } >> >> Using !scanned as the gate could be a problem. There might be a cgroup >> that has inactive pages on the local level, but when viewed from the >> system level the total inactive pages in the system might still be low >> compared to active ones. In that case we should go after active pages. >> >> Basically, during global reclaim, the answer for whether active pages >> should be scanned or not should be the same regardless of whether the >> memory is all global or whether it's spread out between cgroups. >> >> The reason this isn't the case is because we're checking the ratio at >> the lruvec level - which is the highest level (and identical to the >> node counters) when memory is global, but it's at the lowest level >> when memory is cgrouped. >> >> So IMO what we should do is: >> >> - At the beginning of global reclaim, use node_page_state() to compare >> the INACTIVE_FILE:ACTIVE_FILE ratio and then decide whether reclaim >> can go after active pages or not. Regardless of what the ratio is in >> individual lruvecs. >> >> - And likewise at the beginning of cgroup limit reclaim, walk the >> subtree starting at sc->target_mem_cgroup, sum up the INACTIVE_FILE >> and ACTIVE_FILE counters, and make inactive_is_low() decision on >> those sums. >> > > Sounds reasonable. > On the second thought it seems to be better to keep the decision on lru level. There are couple reasons for this: 1) Using bare node_page_state() (or sc->targe_mem_cgroup's total_[in]active counters) would be wrong. Because some cgroups might have protection set (memory.low) and we must take it into account. Also different cgroups have different available swap space/memory.swappiness and it must be taken into account as well to. So it has to be yet another full memcg-tree iteration. 2) Let's consider simple case. Two cgroups, one with big 'active' set of pages the other allocates one-time used pages. So the total inactive is low, thus checking inactive ratio on higher level will result in reclaiming pages. While with check on lru-level only inactive will be reclaimed. I've tried to come up with a scenario in which checking ratio on higher level would better but failed.