From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: asynchronous reclaim for memory.high
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:41:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200219214112.4kt573kyzbvmbvn3@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200219195332.GE11847@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:53:32PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 19-02-20 14:16:18, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:37:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 19-02-20 13:12:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > This patch adds asynchronous reclaim to the memory.high cgroup limit
> > > > while keeping direct reclaim as a fallback. In our testing, this
> > > > eliminated all direct reclaim from the affected workload.
> > >
> > > Who is accounted for all the work? Unless I am missing something this
> > > just gets hidden in the system activity and that might hurt the
> > > isolation. I do see how moving the work to a different context is
> > > desirable but this work has to be accounted properly when it is going to
> > > become a normal mode of operation (rather than a rare exception like the
> > > existing irq context handling).
> >
> > Yes, the plan is to account it to the cgroup on whose behalf we're
> > doing the work.
How are you planning to do that?
I've been thinking about how to account a kernel thread's CPU usage to a cgroup
on and off while working on the parallelizing Michal mentions below. A few
approaches are described here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200212224731.kmss6o6agekkg3mw@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com/
> shows that the amount of the work required for the high limit reclaim
> can be non-trivial. Somebody has to do that work and we cannot simply
> allow everybody else to pay for that.
>
> > The problem is that we have a general lack of usable CPU control right
> > now - see Rik's work on this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/21/1208.
> > For workloads that are contended on CPU, we cannot enable the CPU
> > controller because the scheduling latencies are too high. And for
> > workloads that aren't CPU contended, well, it doesn't really matter
> > where the reclaim cycles are accounted to.
> >
> > Once we have the CPU controller up to speed, we can add annotations
> > like these to account stretches of execution to specific
> > cgroups. There just isn't much point to do it before we can actually
> > enable CPU control on the real workloads where it would matter.
Which annotations do you mean? I didn't see them when skimming through Rik's
work or in this patch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-19 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-19 18:12 [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: asynchronous reclaim for memory.high Johannes Weiner
2020-02-19 18:37 ` Michal Hocko
2020-02-19 19:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-19 19:53 ` Michal Hocko
2020-02-19 21:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-20 9:46 ` Michal Hocko
2020-02-20 14:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-19 21:41 ` Daniel Jordan [this message]
2020-02-19 22:08 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-20 15:45 ` Daniel Jordan
2020-02-20 15:56 ` Tejun Heo
2020-02-20 18:23 ` Daniel Jordan
2020-02-20 18:45 ` Tejun Heo
2020-02-20 19:55 ` Daniel Jordan
2020-02-20 20:54 ` Tejun Heo
2020-02-19 19:17 ` Chris Down
2020-02-19 19:31 ` Andrew Morton
2020-02-19 21:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-26 20:25 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-02-26 22:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-26 23:36 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-02-26 23:46 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-27 0:12 ` Yang Shi
2020-02-27 2:42 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-02-27 9:58 ` Michal Hocko
2020-02-27 12:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-02-26 23:59 ` Yang Shi
2020-02-27 2:36 ` Shakeel Butt
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=20200219214112.4kt573kyzbvmbvn3@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com \
--to=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--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).