Linux-mm Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <>
To: Chris Down <>
Cc: Andrew Morton <>,
	Michal Hocko <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high allocator throttling
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:45:04 -0400
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:42:35PM +0100, Chris Down wrote:
> In Facebook production, we've seen cases where cgroups have been put
> into allocator throttling even when they appear to have a lot of slack
> file caches which should be trivially reclaimable.
> Looking more closely, the problem is that we only try a single cgroup
> reclaim walk for each return to usermode before calculating whether or
> not we should throttle. This single attempt doesn't produce enough
> pressure to shrink for cgroups with a rapidly growing amount of file
> caches prior to entering allocator throttling.
> As an example, we see that threads in an affected cgroup are stuck in
> allocator throttling:
>     # for i in $(cat cgroup.threads); do
>     >     grep over_high "/proc/$i/stack"
>     > done
>     [<0>] mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x10b/0x150
>     [<0>] mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x10b/0x150
>     [<0>] mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x10b/0x150
> ...however, there is no I/O pressure reported by PSI, despite a lot of
> slack file pages:
>     # cat memory.pressure
>     some avg10=78.50 avg60=84.99 avg300=84.53 total=5702440903
>     full avg10=78.50 avg60=84.99 avg300=84.53 total=5702116959
>     # cat io.pressure
>     some avg10=0.00 avg60=0.00 avg300=0.00 total=78051391
>     full avg10=0.00 avg60=0.00 avg300=0.00 total=78049640
>     # grep _file memory.stat
>     inactive_file 1370939392
>     active_file 661635072
> This patch changes the behaviour to retry reclaim either until the
> current task goes below the 10ms grace period, or we are making no
> reclaim progress at all. In the latter case, we enter reclaim throttling
> as before.
> To a user, there's no intuitive reason for the reclaim behaviour to
> differ from hitting memory.high as part of a new allocation, as opposed
> to hitting memory.high because someone lowered its value. As such this
> also brings an added benefit: it unifies the reclaim behaviour between
> the two.
> There's precedent for this behaviour: we already do reclaim retries when
> writing to memory.{high,max}, in max reclaim, and in the page allocator
> itself.
> Signed-off-by: Chris Down <>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <>

  parent reply index

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-13 11:42 [PATCH v2 0/2] mm, memcg: reclaim harder before high throttling Chris Down
2020-07-13 11:42 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high allocator throttling Chris Down
2020-07-13 14:50   ` Shakeel Butt
2020-07-14 15:45   ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2020-07-13 11:42 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm, memcg: unify reclaim retry limits with page allocator 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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-mm Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror linux-mm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-mm linux-mm/ \
	public-inbox-index linux-mm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone