From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932241AbcCKOWh (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:22:37 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:34661 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752966AbcCKOWa (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:22:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:22:27 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage Message-ID: <20160311142227.GR27701@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1457643015-8828-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza> <20160311084238.GE27701@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160311091303.GJ1946@esperanza> <20160311095309.GF27701@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160311114934.GL1946@esperanza> <20160311133936.GQ27701@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160311140146.GO1946@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160311140146.GO1946@esperanza> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 11-03-16 17:01:46, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:39:36PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 11-03-16 14:49:34, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:53:09AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > OTOH memory.low and memory.high are perfect to be changed dynamically, > > > > > basing on containers' memory demand/pressure. A load manager might want > > > > > to reconfigure these knobs say every 5 seconds. Spawning a thread per > > > > > each container that often would look unnecessarily overcomplicated IMO. > > > > > > > > The question however is whether we want to hide a potentially costly > > > > operation and have it unaccounted and hidden in the kworker context. > > > > > > There's already mem_cgroup->high_work doing reclaim in an unaccounted > > > context quite often if tcp accounting is enabled. > > > > I suspect this is done because the charging context cannot do much > > better. > > > > > And there's kswapd. > > > memory.high knob is for the root only so it can't be abused by an > > > unprivileged user. Regarding a privileged user, e.g. load manager, it > > > can screw things up anyway, e.g. by configuring sum of memory.low to be > > > greater than total RAM on the host and hence driving kswapd mad. > > > > I am not worried about abuse. It is just weird to move something which > > can be perfectly sync to an async mode. > > > > > > I mean fork() + write() doesn't sound terribly complicated to me to have > > > > a rather subtle behavior in the kernel. > > > > > > It'd be just a dubious API IMHO. With memory.max everything's clear: it > > > tries to reclaim memory hard, may stall for several seconds, may invoke > > > OOM, but if it finishes successfully we have memory.current less than > > > memory.max. With this patch memory.high knob behaves rather strangely: > > > it might stall, but there's no guarantee you'll have memory.current less > > > than memory.high; moreover, according to the documentation it's OK to > > > have memory.current greater than memory.high, so what's the point in > > > calling synchronous reclaim blocking the caller? > > > > Even if the reclaim is best effort it doesn't mean we should hide it > > into an async context. There is simply no reason to do so. We do the > > some for other knobs which are performing a potentially expensive > > operation and do not guarantee the result. > > IMO it depends on what a knob is used for. If it's for testing or > debugging or recovering the system (e.g. manual oom, compact, > drop_caches), this must be synchronous, but memory.high is going to be > tweaked at runtime during normal system operation every several seconds > or so, Is this really going to happen in the real life? And if yes is it really probable that such an adjustment would cause such a large disruption? > at least in my understanding. I understand your concern, and may > be you're right in the end, but think about userspace that will probably > have to spawn thousands threads every 5 seconds or so just to write to a > file. It's painful IMO. > > Are there any hidden non-obvious implications of handing over reclaim to > a kernel worker on adjusting memory.high? May be, I'm just missing > something obvious, and it can be really dangerous or sub-optimal. I am just thinking about what would happen if workers just start stacking up because they couldn't be processed and then would race with each other. I mean this all would be fixable but I really fail to see how that makes sense from the very beginning. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs