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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 6FE59C43381 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7D42190A for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:44:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1553211899; bh=UpHbhHN1Zc5BHGT03KaWWWF0W9L5k2v3o9D99kG+1Dc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=Wl+yvliRLnjQT9ZuVv7yZFUpQI7Cuk3JD+RjQZMjJs0nNk1fwX1YOhCLvqCqtiXvH SafyJqQlekNPpQ2vjLCSSq2hhdkzCGBBA2pWIHrnP3zUnKkAoUJXE3kDdBcvGedYs8 ZVl/+Oa0vcfaE85JuhsULQL+HFu5jEwK6/IUTfz8= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727142AbfCUXo4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:44:56 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:33312 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726374AbfCUXo4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:44:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-223-200-170.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.223.200.170]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 529FCE7A; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:44:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Greg Thelen Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Tejun Heo , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: sum memcg dirty counters as needed Message-Id: <20190321164453.46143c8bf2dd8bfd0f91d71c@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20190307165632.35810-1-gthelen@google.com> References: <20190307165632.35810-1-gthelen@google.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 08:56:32 -0800 Greg Thelen 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 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.