From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: sum memcg dirty counters as needed
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:44:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190321164453.46143c8bf2dd8bfd0f91d71c@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307165632.35810-1-gthelen@google.com>
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 08:56:32 -0800 Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> wrote:
> Since commit a983b5ebee57 ("mm: memcontrol: fix excessive complexity in
> memory.stat reporting") memcg dirty and writeback counters are managed
> as:
> 1) per-memcg per-cpu values in range of [-32..32]
> 2) per-memcg atomic counter
> When a per-cpu counter cannot fit in [-32..32] it's flushed to the
> atomic. Stat readers only check the atomic.
> Thus readers such as balance_dirty_pages() may see a nontrivial error
> margin: 32 pages per cpu.
> Assuming 100 cpus:
> 4k x86 page_size: 13 MiB error per memcg
> 64k ppc page_size: 200 MiB error per memcg
> Considering that dirty+writeback are used together for some decisions
> the errors double.
>
> This inaccuracy can lead to undeserved oom kills. One nasty case is
> when all per-cpu counters hold positive values offsetting an atomic
> negative value (i.e. per_cpu[*]=32, atomic=n_cpu*-32).
> balance_dirty_pages() only consults the atomic and does not consider
> throttling the next n_cpu*32 dirty pages. If the file_lru is in the
> 13..200 MiB range then there's absolutely no dirty throttling, which
> burdens vmscan with only dirty+writeback pages thus resorting to oom
> kill.
>
> It could be argued that tiny containers are not supported, but it's more
> subtle. It's the amount the space available for file lru that matters.
> If a container has memory.max-200MiB of non reclaimable memory, then it
> will also suffer such oom kills on a 100 cpu machine.
>
> ...
>
> Make balance_dirty_pages() and wb_over_bg_thresh() work harder to
> collect exact per memcg counters when a memcg is close to the
> throttling/writeback threshold. This avoids the aforementioned oom
> kills.
>
> This does not affect the overhead of memory.stat, which still reads the
> single atomic counter.
>
> Why not use percpu_counter? memcg already handles cpus going offline,
> so no need for that overhead from percpu_counter. And the
> percpu_counter spinlocks are more heavyweight than is required.
>
> It probably also makes sense to include exact dirty and writeback
> counters in memcg oom reports. But that is saved for later.
Nice changelog, thanks.
> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Did you consider cc:stable for this? We may as well - the stablebots
backport everything which might look slightly like a fix anyway :(
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -573,6 +573,22 @@ static inline unsigned long memcg_page_state(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> return x;
> }
>
> +/* idx can be of type enum memcg_stat_item or node_stat_item */
> +static inline unsigned long
> +memcg_exact_page_state(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int idx)
> +{
> + long x = atomic_long_read(&memcg->stat[idx]);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> + x += per_cpu_ptr(memcg->stat_cpu, cpu)->count[idx];
> + if (x < 0)
> + x = 0;
> +#endif
> + return x;
> +}
This looks awfully heavyweight for an inline function. Why not make it
a regular function and avoid the bloat and i-cache consumption?
Also, did you instead consider making this spill the percpu counters
into memcg->stat[idx]? That might be more useful for potential future
callers. It would become a little more expensive though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-21 23:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-07 16:56 [PATCH] writeback: sum memcg dirty counters as needed Greg Thelen
2019-03-21 23:44 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2019-03-29 17:47 ` Greg Thelen
2019-03-22 18:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-03-27 22:29 ` Greg Thelen
2019-03-28 14:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-03-28 14:20 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-03-29 17:50 ` Greg Thelen
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=20190321164453.46143c8bf2dd8bfd0f91d71c@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/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).