From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:19:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180827231909.GA19820@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180827140143.98b65bc7cb32f50245eb9114@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 02:01:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 09:26:19 -0700 Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> > If CONFIG_VMAP_STACK is set, kernel stacks are allocated
> > using __vmalloc_node_range() with __GFP_ACCOUNT. So kernel
> > stack pages are charged against corresponding memory cgroups
> > on allocation and uncharged on releasing them.
> >
> > The problem is that we do cache kernel stacks in small
> > per-cpu caches and do reuse them for new tasks, which can
> > belong to different memory cgroups.
> >
> > Each stack page still holds a reference to the original cgroup,
> > so the cgroup can't be released until the vmap area is released.
> >
> > To make this happen we need more than two subsequent exits
> > without forks in between on the current cpu, which makes it
> > very unlikely to happen. As a result, I saw a significant number
> > of dying cgroups (in theory, up to 2 * number_of_cpu +
> > number_of_tasks), which can't be released even by significant
> > memory pressure.
> >
> > As a cgroup structure can take a significant amount of memory
> > (first of all, per-cpu data like memcg statistics), it leads
> > to a noticeable waste of memory.
>
> OK, but this doesn't describe how the patch addresses this issue?
Sorry, missed this part. Let's add the following paragraph to the
commit message (the full updated patch is below):
To address the issue, let's charge thread stacks on assigning
them to tasks, and uncharge on releasing them and putting into
the per-cpu cache. So, cached stacks will not be assigned to
any memcg and will not hold any memcg reference.
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > @@ -371,6 +382,35 @@ static void account_kernel_stack(struct task_struct *tsk, int account)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static int memcg_charge_kernel_stack(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
> > + struct vm_struct *vm = task_stack_vm_area(tsk);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (vm) {
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE; i++) {
>
> Can we ever have THREAD_SIZE < PAGE_SIZE? 64k pages?
Hm, good question!
We can, but I doubt that anyone using 64k pages AND CONFIG_VMAP_STACK,
and I *suspect* that it will trigger the BUG_ON() in account_kernel_stack():
static void account_kernel_stack(struct task_struct *tsk, int account) {
...
if (vm) {
...
BUG_ON(vm->nr_pages != THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE);
But I don't see anything that makes such a config illegitimate.
Does it makes any sense to use vmap if THREAD_SIZE < PAGE_SIZE?
>
> > + /*
> > + * If memcg_kmem_charge() fails, page->mem_cgroup
> > + * pointer is NULL, and both memcg_kmem_uncharge()
> > + * and mod_memcg_page_state() in free_thread_stack()
> > + * will ignore this page. So it's safe.
> > + */
> > + ret = memcg_kmem_charge(vm->pages[i], GFP_KERNEL, 0);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + mod_memcg_page_state(vm->pages[i],
> > + MEMCG_KERNEL_STACK_KB,
> > + PAGE_SIZE / 1024);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> >
> > ...
> >
Thanks!
--
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-27 23:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-27 16:26 [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting Roman Gushchin
2018-08-27 16:26 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: drain memcg stocks on css offlining Roman Gushchin
2018-08-27 16:26 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: don't miss the last page because of round-off error Roman Gushchin
2018-08-27 21:04 ` Andrew Morton
2018-08-27 23:24 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-08-29 21:33 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-09-05 21:08 ` Andrew Morton
2018-08-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: rework memcg kernel stack accounting Andrew Morton
2018-08-27 23:19 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
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=20180827231909.GA19820@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com \
--to=guro@fb.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=koct9i@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@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).