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=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,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 56DB0C433E0 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD32464E61 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:43:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CD32464E61 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3413C6B006E; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2F2126B0070; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:43:08 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 214828D0001; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:43:08 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0107.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.107]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAB36B006E for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4971180163D9 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:43:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77845264014.26.375E0FC Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65437138 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:43:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1613983386; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BGr3u1/QiWkqeNGAS3nuSf2LPGyseFbACm8rcGmaFMU=; b=jyTfTBszQLX9et73++r8X7IxIMrqlNpH9jZPmxVJzzdhnlZPOwgMlrZ6YcBxmmoy7ZqRr5 qbnq8T2JOps4nShL425LoAycwSUXe1OHGYvGk+eF2wrI48AKF5j2qyuB2JUpW6u+PxgFj3 WJ04qlNgi/dXFFcAUlVp1OXf9kWxaTc= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33741AFD7; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:41:40 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Tim Chen Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Dave Hansen , Ying Huang , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates Message-ID: References: <1ecd277e-c236-08e1-f068-3dd65ee0e640@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1ecd277e-c236-08e1-f068-3dd65ee0e640@linux.intel.com> X-Stat-Signature: 9ipiyjepsufwwxtiyjn6eh5mkikr44sf X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 65437138 Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf12; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1613983382-177666 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri 19-02-21 11:28:47, Tim Chen wrote: > > > On 2/19/21 1:16 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >> > >> Something like this? > >> > >> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > >> index 8bddee75f5cb..b50cae3b2a1a 100644 > >> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > >> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > >> @@ -3472,6 +3472,14 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, > >> if (!mz) > >> break; > >> > >> + /* > >> + * Soft limit tree is updated based on memcg events sampling. > >> + * We could have missed some updates on page uncharge and > >> + * the cgroup is below soft limit. Skip useless soft reclaim. > >> + */ > >> + if (!soft_limit_excess(mz->memcg)) > >> + continue; > >> + > >> nr_scanned = 0; > >> reclaimed = mem_cgroup_soft_reclaim(mz->memcg, pgdat, > > > > Yes I meant something like this but then I have looked more closely and > > this shouldn't be needed afterall. __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node > > already does all the work > > if (!soft_limit_excess(mz->memcg) || > > !css_tryget(&mz->memcg->css)) > > goto retry; > > so this shouldn't really happen. > > > > Ah, that's true. The added check for soft_limit_excess is not needed. > > Do you think it is still a good idea to add patch 3 to > restrict the uncharge update in page batch of the same node and cgroup? I would rather drop it. The less the soft limit reclaim code is spread around the better. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs