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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 76338C0650F for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A242147A for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:32:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565015563; bh=048iu1c5WZZh7Af9wVACeLtRgOlh4LubGVgA2DC7TG0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=CFI4NQSCrCgVDBSaTh/onuzqAT9scK14qjLeR2dRYtxkVFc5xORqpgcMz0qb0iY7b X4RCG00s5LiTAgUByRKVZPVCOpSg5qIYo8mAcY8PmDoniJYAION3VSCWA1mJ81wFnl e5g9+tzvln42YoJt7xGnDkWNcxQP8hHOrWgBRI8Q= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729424AbfHEOcm (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:32:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42812 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728149AbfHEOcm (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:32:42 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2405AF3E; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 16:32:39 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Yang Shi Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm/memcontrol: reclaim severe usage over high limit in get_user_pages loop Message-ID: <20190805143239.GS7597@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <156431697805.3170.6377599347542228221.stgit@buzz> <20190729091738.GF9330@dhcp22.suse.cz> <3d6fc779-2081-ba4b-22cf-be701d617bb4@yandex-team.ru> <20190729103307.GG9330@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190729184850.GH9330@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190802093507.GF6461@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 02-08-19 11:56:28, Yang Shi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:35 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 01-08-19 14:00:51, Yang Shi wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:48 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon 29-07-19 10:28:43, Yang Shi wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I don't worry too much about scale since the scale issue is not unique > > > > > to background reclaim, direct reclaim may run into the same problem. > > > > > > > > Just to clarify. By scaling problem I mean 1:1 kswapd thread to memcg. > > > > You can have thousands of memcgs and I do not think we really do want > > > > to create one kswapd for each. Once we have a kswapd thread pool then we > > > > get into a tricky land where a determinism/fairness would be non trivial > > > > to achieve. Direct reclaim, on the other hand is bound by the workload > > > > itself. > > > > > > Yes, I agree thread pool would introduce more latency than dedicated > > > kswapd thread. But, it looks not that bad in our test. When memory > > > allocation is fast, even though dedicated kswapd thread can't catch > > > up. So, such background reclaim is best effort, not guaranteed. > > > > > > I don't quite get what you mean about fairness. Do you mean they may > > > spend excessive cpu time then cause other processes starvation? I > > > think this could be mitigated by properly organizing and setting > > > groups. But, I agree this is tricky. > > > > No, I meant that the cost of reclaiming a unit of charges (e.g. > > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) is not constant and depends on the state of the memory > > on LRUs. Therefore any thread pool mechanism would lead to unfair > > reclaim and non-deterministic behavior. > > Yes, the cost depends on the state of pages, but I still don't quite > understand what does "unfair" refer to in this context. Do you mean > some cgroups may reclaim much more than others? > Or the work may take too long so it can't not serve other cgroups in time? exactly. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs