| Message ID | 20200216145249.6900-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [resend] mm, memcg: reset memcg's memory.{min, low} for reclaiming itself | expand |
On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > Here's an example of this issue. > > root_mem_cgroup > / > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > That is not proper. Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean that this is not proper behavior? What happens if we have concurrent reclaimers at different levels of the hierarchy how that would affect the resulting protection? > Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> > Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 11 ++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 6f6dc8712e39..df7fedbfc211 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -6250,8 +6250,17 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, > > if (!root) > root = root_mem_cgroup; > - if (memcg == root) > + if (memcg == root) { > + /* > + * Reset memory.(emin, elow) for reclaiming the memcg > + * itself. > + */ > + if (memcg != root_mem_cgroup) { > + memcg->memory.emin = 0; > + memcg->memory.elow = 0; > + } > return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; > + } > > usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); > if (!usage) > -- > 2.14.1
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > / > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > That is not proper. > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > that this is not proper behavior? In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get a wrong protection value, and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this wrong protection. > What happens if we have concurrent > reclaimers at different levels of the hierarchy how that would affect > the resulting protection? > Well, I thought the synchronization mechanisms have already existed ? Otherwise there must be concurrent issue in the original code of setting the memcg.{emin, elow} as well. (Because memcg->memory.{emin, elow} are also set at the end of the function mem_cgroup_protected()) > > Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") > > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> > > Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > --- > > mm/memcontrol.c | 11 ++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index 6f6dc8712e39..df7fedbfc211 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -6250,8 +6250,17 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, > > > > if (!root) > > root = root_mem_cgroup; > > - if (memcg == root) > > + if (memcg == root) { > > + /* > > + * Reset memory.(emin, elow) for reclaiming the memcg > > + * itself. > > + */ > > + if (memcg != root_mem_cgroup) { > > + memcg->memory.emin = 0; > > + memcg->memory.elow = 0; > > + } > > return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; > > + } > > > > usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); > > if (!usage) > > -- > > 2.14.1 > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- Yafang Shao DiDi
On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > / > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > That is not proper. > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > that this is not proper behavior? > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > a wrong protection value, > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > wrong protection. Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > What happens if we have concurrent > > reclaimers at different levels of the hierarchy how that would affect > > the resulting protection? > > > > Well, I thought the synchronization mechanisms have already existed ? > Otherwise there must be concurrent issue in the original code of > setting the memcg.{emin, elow} as well. > (Because memcg->memory.{emin, elow} are also set at the end of the > function mem_cgroup_protected()) This function is documented to be racy and I believe this is OK because it doesn't really have to be precise and concurrent updates are not going to change values much. But does the same apply to reseting the effective values? Maybe yes. Make sure to document this in the changelog please.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > / > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > a wrong protection value, > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > wrong protection. > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. kswapd | calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A | stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A | This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) | exit (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. memcg relcaimer | As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow for memcg-A. (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) | The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) | exit I try my best to illustrate it. Hope it could clarify. > > > What happens if we have concurrent > > > reclaimers at different levels of the hierarchy how that would affect > > > the resulting protection? > > > > > > > Well, I thought the synchronization mechanisms have already existed ? > > Otherwise there must be concurrent issue in the original code of > > setting the memcg.{emin, elow} as well. > > (Because memcg->memory.{emin, elow} are also set at the end of the > > function mem_cgroup_protected()) > > This function is documented to be racy and I believe this is OK because > it doesn't really have to be precise and concurrent updates are not > going to change values much. But does the same apply to reseting the > effective values? Maybe yes. Make sure to document this in the changelog > please. Sure. I will document it. -- Yafang Shao DiDi
On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > / > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > a wrong protection value, > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > wrong protection. > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > kswapd > | > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > | > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > | > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > | > exit > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > memcg relcaimer > | > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > for memcg-A. > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > | > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old value is no longer valid? Btw. have you seen the latest patch from Johannes touching this area [1]? Is it possible that the issue you are referring to is related with the one he has fixed? [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191219200718.15696-2-hannes@cmpxchg.org
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > / > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > kswapd > > | > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > | > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > | > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > | > > exit > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > memcg relcaimer > > | > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > for memcg-A. > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > | > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > value is no longer valid? Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if statement (if (memcg == root)). > > Btw. have you seen the latest patch from Johannes touching this area > [1]? Is it possible that the issue you are referring to is related with > the one he has fixed? > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191219200718.15696-2-hannes@cmpxchg.org > I haven't taken a look at it yet.
On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > kswapd > > > | > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > | > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > | > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > | > > > exit > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > memcg relcaimer > > > | > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > for memcg-A. > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > | > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > value is no longer valid? > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > statement (if (memcg == root)). Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB?
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > > kswapd > > > > | > > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > > | > > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > > | > > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > > | > > > > exit > > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > > memcg relcaimer > > > > | > > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > > for memcg-A. > > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > > | > > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > > value is no longer valid? > > > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > > statement (if (memcg == root)). > > Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? Because A's hard limit is reached and A is the root of memcg relcaimer. If A is the root of the memcg reclaimer, then the memcg protection should not prevent it from relcaiming the page cache pages of itself. That is why the if statement if (memcg == root) exists.
On Mon 17-02-20 22:40:22, Yafang Shao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > > > kswapd > > > > > | > > > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > > > | > > > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > > > | > > > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > > > | > > > > > exit > > > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > > > memcg relcaimer > > > > > | > > > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > > > for memcg-A. > > > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > > > | > > > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > > > value is no longer valid? > > > > > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > > > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > > > statement (if (memcg == root)). > > > > Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? > > Because A's hard limit is reached and A is the root of memcg relcaimer. Confused. But your examples suggests that memory.max > memory.min so having an effective emin 0 or not doesn't make any difference. > If A is the root of the memcg reclaimer, then the memcg protection > should not prevent it from relcaiming the page cache pages of itself. > That is why the if statement if (memcg == root) exists. I suspect you misinterpret the code or your example is incomplete. Please have a look at the patch I have referred to earlier. Johannes explicitly sets effective values to their native ones if (parent == root) { memcg->memory.emin = memcg->memory.min; memcg->memory.elow = memcg->memory.low; goto out; } and this matches my understanding.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:14 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:40:22, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > > > > kswapd > > > > > > | > > > > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > > > > | > > > > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > > > > | > > > > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > > > > | > > > > > > exit > > > > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > > > > memcg relcaimer > > > > > > | > > > > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > > > > for memcg-A. > > > > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > > > > | > > > > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > > > > value is no longer valid? > > > > > > > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > > > > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > > > > statement (if (memcg == root)). > > > > > > Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? > > > > Because A's hard limit is reached and A is the root of memcg relcaimer. > > Confused. But your examples suggests that memory.max > memory.min so > having an effective emin 0 or not doesn't make any difference. > Why is it having an effective emin 0 if memory.max > memory.min ? Note that effective emin is only set in function mem_cgroup_protected(), so if we don't set it explicitly to 0 then it can't be 0. Besides mem_cgroup_protected(), the effective emin also take effect in the function mem_cgroup_protection(), but in this function it only use the existed memory.emin rather than verifying memory.max > memory.min. So the real issue is in mem_cgroup_protection(), because the value it is using may be an old value. > > If A is the root of the memcg reclaimer, then the memcg protection > > should not prevent it from relcaiming the page cache pages of itself. > > That is why the if statement if (memcg == root) exists. > > I suspect you misinterpret the code or your example is incomplete. > Please have a look at the patch I have referred to earlier. Johannes > explicitly sets effective values to their native ones > if (parent == root) { > memcg->memory.emin = memcg->memory.min; > memcg->memory.elow = memcg->memory.low; > goto out; > } > > and this matches my understanding. I haven't read Johannes's patch carefully, but take a first glance I don't think it can fix this issue.
On Tue 18-02-20 10:09:06, Yafang Shao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:14 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:40:22, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > > > > > kswapd > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > exit > > > > > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > > > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > > > > > memcg relcaimer > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > > > > > for memcg-A. > > > > > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > > > > > value is no longer valid? > > > > > > > > > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > > > > > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > > > > > statement (if (memcg == root)). > > > > > > > > Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? > > > > > > Because A's hard limit is reached and A is the root of memcg relcaimer. > > > > Confused. But your examples suggests that memory.max > memory.min so > > having an effective emin 0 or not doesn't make any difference. > > > > Why is it having an effective emin 0 if memory.max > memory.min ? > Note that effective emin is only set in function > mem_cgroup_protected(), so if we don't set it explicitly to 0 then it > can't be 0. > > Besides mem_cgroup_protected(), the effective emin also take effect in > the function mem_cgroup_protection(), but in this function it only use > the existed memory.emin rather than verifying memory.max > memory.min. > > So the real issue is in mem_cgroup_protection(), because the value it > is using may be an old value. I am sorry but I still do not follow. You keep focusing on talking about the code while I am really interested in the user visible semantic that you want to achieve. I am sorry to be dense here but believe me I am trying. Your example doesn't help much because the effective protection doesn't play any role in the limit reclaim there AFAICS. I would even argue that emin == min is the proper thing in your example. So I can only recommend you to rethink your usecase and try to describe it in a higher level way. Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:59 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue 18-02-20 10:09:06, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:14 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:40:22, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > > > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > > > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > > > > > > kswapd > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > exit > > > > > > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > > > > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > > > > > > memcg relcaimer > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > > > > > > for memcg-A. > > > > > > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > > > > > > value is no longer valid? > > > > > > > > > > > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > > > > > > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > > > > > > statement (if (memcg == root)). > > > > > > > > > > Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? > > > > > > > > Because A's hard limit is reached and A is the root of memcg relcaimer. > > > > > > Confused. But your examples suggests that memory.max > memory.min so > > > having an effective emin 0 or not doesn't make any difference. > > > > > > > Why is it having an effective emin 0 if memory.max > memory.min ? > > Note that effective emin is only set in function > > mem_cgroup_protected(), so if we don't set it explicitly to 0 then it > > can't be 0. > > > > Besides mem_cgroup_protected(), the effective emin also take effect in > > the function mem_cgroup_protection(), but in this function it only use > > the existed memory.emin rather than verifying memory.max > memory.min. > > > > So the real issue is in mem_cgroup_protection(), because the value it > > is using may be an old value. > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. You keep focusing on talking about > the code while I am really interested in the user visible semantic that > you want to achieve. I am sorry to be dense here but believe me I am > trying. > Sorry about my poor English that hasn't described it clearly. > Your example doesn't help much because the effective protection doesn't > play any role in the limit reclaim there AFAICS. I would even argue that > emin == min is the proper thing in your example. > > So I can only recommend you to rethink your usecase and try to describe > it in a higher level way. > Yes, I will try to improve the example and make it more clear.
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 6f6dc8712e39..df7fedbfc211 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -6250,8 +6250,17 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, if (!root) root = root_mem_cgroup; - if (memcg == root) + if (memcg == root) { + /* + * Reset memory.(emin, elow) for reclaiming the memcg + * itself. + */ + if (memcg != root_mem_cgroup) { + memcg->memory.emin = 0; + memcg->memory.elow = 0; + } return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; + } usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); if (!usage)
memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. Here's an example of this issue. root_mem_cgroup / A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value 512M, and then this old value will be used in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. That is not proper. Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- mm/memcontrol.c | 11 ++++++++++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)