From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: yulei zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
benbjiang@tencent.com, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
Yulei Zhang <yuleixzhang@tencent.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] Introduce memory allocation speed throttle in memcg
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:39:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7w1tzxvYCP54KHEo=k=qUd02UTkr+1+b5rTdn-tJt45w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACZOiM21STLrZgcnEwm8w2t82Qj3Ohy-BGbD5u62gTn=z4X3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 2:11 AM yulei zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:45 PM Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> wrote:
> >
> > yulei zhang writes:
> > >Yep, dynamically adjust the memory.high limits can ease the memory pressure
> > >and postpone the global reclaim, but it can easily trigger the oom in
> > >the cgroups,
> >
> > To go further on Shakeel's point, which I agree with, memory.high should
> > _never_ result in memcg OOM. Even if the limit is breached dramatically, we
> > don't OOM the cgroup. If you have a demonstration of memory.high resulting in
> > cgroup-level OOM kills in recent kernels, then that needs to be provided. :-)
>
> You are right, I mistook it for max. Shakeel means the throttling
> during context switch
> which uses memory.high as threshold to calculate the sleep time.
> Currently it only applies
> to cgroupv2. In this patchset we explore another idea to throttle the
> memory usage, which
> rely on setting an average allocation speed in memcg. We hope to
> suppress the memory
> usage in low priority cgroups when it reaches the system watermark and
> still keep the activities
> alive.
I think you need to make the case: why should we add one more form of
throttling? Basically why memory.high is not good for your use-case
and the proposed solution works better. Though IMO it would be a hard
sell.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: yulei zhang <yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Chris Down <chris-6Bi1550iOqEnzZ6mRAm98g@public.gmane.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x-EC8Uxl6Npydl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
Christian Brauner
<christian-STijNZzMWpgWenYVfaLwtA@public.gmane.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
benbjiang-1Nz4purKYjRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Yulei Zhang <yuleixzhang-1Nz4purKYjRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] Introduce memory allocation speed throttle in memcg
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:39:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7w1tzxvYCP54KHEo=k=qUd02UTkr+1+b5rTdn-tJt45w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACZOiM21STLrZgcnEwm8w2t82Qj3Ohy-BGbD5u62gTn=z4X3Lw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 2:11 AM yulei zhang <yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:45 PM Chris Down <chris-6Bi1550iOqEnzZ6mRAm98g@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > yulei zhang writes:
> > >Yep, dynamically adjust the memory.high limits can ease the memory pressure
> > >and postpone the global reclaim, but it can easily trigger the oom in
> > >the cgroups,
> >
> > To go further on Shakeel's point, which I agree with, memory.high should
> > _never_ result in memcg OOM. Even if the limit is breached dramatically, we
> > don't OOM the cgroup. If you have a demonstration of memory.high resulting in
> > cgroup-level OOM kills in recent kernels, then that needs to be provided. :-)
>
> You are right, I mistook it for max. Shakeel means the throttling
> during context switch
> which uses memory.high as threshold to calculate the sleep time.
> Currently it only applies
> to cgroupv2. In this patchset we explore another idea to throttle the
> memory usage, which
> rely on setting an average allocation speed in memcg. We hope to
> suppress the memory
> usage in low priority cgroups when it reaches the system watermark and
> still keep the activities
> alive.
I think you need to make the case: why should we add one more form of
throttling? Basically why memory.high is not good for your use-case
and the proposed solution works better. Though IMO it would be a hard
sell.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-02 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-26 16:17 [RFC 0/7] Introduce memory allocation speed throttle in memcg yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
[not found] ` <cover.1622043596.git.yuleixzhang-1Nz4purKYjRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2021-05-26 16:17 ` [RFC 1/7] mm: record total charge and max speed counter " yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2021-05-26 16:17 ` [RFC 2/7] mm: introduce alloc_bps to memcg for memory allocation speed throttle yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2021-05-26 16:18 ` [RFC 3/7] mm: memory allocation speed throttle setup in hierarchy yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2021-05-26 16:18 ` [RFC 4/7] mm: introduce slice analysis into memory speed throttle mechanism yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2021-05-26 16:18 ` [RFC 5/7] mm: introduce memory allocation speed throttle yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2021-05-26 16:18 ` [RFC 6/7] mm: record the numbers of memory allocation throttle yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2021-05-26 19:57 ` kernel test robot
2021-05-26 21:34 ` kernel test robot
2021-05-26 16:18 ` [RFC 7/7] mm: introduce mst low and min watermark yulei.kernel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w
2021-05-26 20:52 ` [RFC 0/7] Introduce memory allocation speed throttle in memcg Shakeel Butt
2021-05-26 20:52 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-05-31 12:11 ` yulei zhang
2021-05-31 12:11 ` yulei zhang
2021-05-31 18:20 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-05-31 18:20 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-01 14:45 ` Chris Down
2021-06-01 14:45 ` Chris Down
2021-06-02 9:11 ` yulei zhang
2021-06-02 9:11 ` yulei zhang
2021-06-02 15:39 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2021-06-02 15:39 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-03 10:19 ` yulei zhang
2021-06-03 10:19 ` yulei zhang
2021-06-03 11:38 ` Chris Down
2021-06-03 11:38 ` Chris Down
2021-06-04 10:15 ` yulei zhang
2021-06-04 10:15 ` yulei zhang
2021-06-04 11:51 ` Chris Down
2021-06-04 11:51 ` Chris Down
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='CALvZod7w1tzxvYCP54KHEo=k=qUd02UTkr+1+b5rTdn-tJt45w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=benbjiang@tencent.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yulei.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=yuleixzhang@tencent.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: link
Be 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.