From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: prevent starvation when writing memory.high
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:45:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <X/38ZwyOE96SAfa9@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210112170322.GA99586@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:03:22AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:30:11AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > When a value is written to a cgroup's memory.high control file, the
> > write() context first tries to reclaim the cgroup to size before
> > putting the limit in place for the workload. Concurrent charges from
> > the workload can keep such a write() looping in reclaim indefinitely.
> >
> > In the past, a write to memory.high would first put the limit in place
> > for the workload, then do targeted reclaim until the new limit has
> > been met - similar to how we do it for memory.max. This wasn't prone
> > to the described starvation issue. However, this sequence could cause
> > excessive latencies in the workload, when allocating threads could be
> > put into long penalty sleeps on the sudden memory.high overage created
> > by the write(), before that had a chance to work it off.
> >
> > Now that memory_high_write() performs reclaim before enforcing the new
> > limit, reflect that the cgroup may well fail to converge due to
> > concurrent workload activity. Bail out of the loop after a few tries.
> >
> > Fixes: 536d3bf261a2 ("mm: memcontrol: avoid workload stalls when lowering memory.high")
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.8+
> > Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 7 +++----
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 605f671203ef..63a8d47c1cd3 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -6275,7 +6275,6 @@ static ssize_t memory_high_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > unsigned long nr_pages = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
> > - unsigned long reclaimed;
> >
> > if (nr_pages <= high)
> > break;
> > @@ -6289,10 +6288,10 @@ static ssize_t memory_high_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > - reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages - high,
> > - GFP_KERNEL, true);
> > + try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages - high,
> > + GFP_KERNEL, true);
> >
> > - if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
> > + if (!nr_retries--)
>
> Shouldn't it be (!reclaimed || !nr_retries) instead?
>
> If reclaimed == 0, it probably doesn't make much sense to retry.
We usually allow nr_retries worth of no-progress reclaim cycles to
make up for intermittent reclaim failures.
The difference to OOMs/memory.max is that we don't want to loop
indefinitely on forward progress, but we should allow the usual number
of no-progress loops.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-12 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-12 16:30 [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: prevent starvation when writing memory.high Johannes Weiner
2021-01-12 17:03 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-12 19:45 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2021-01-12 20:12 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-12 21:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-01-12 21:45 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-15 15:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-01-12 18:59 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-01-12 19:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-01-12 20:28 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-01-13 14:46 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-15 16:20 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-01-15 17:03 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-15 20:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-01-15 21:27 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-01-19 16:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-01-18 13:12 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-13 17:25 ` Michal Koutný
2021-01-13 18:06 ` Roman Gushchin
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=X/38ZwyOE96SAfa9@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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).