| Message ID | 20230711124157.97169-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RESEND,net-next,1/2] net-memcg: Scopify the indicators of sockmem pressure | expand |
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 20:41:43 +0800 Abel Wu wrote: > Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside > struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. > > When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged > into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so > the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's > pressure at all. While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply > not used. > > So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode > respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed > use of both. Eric Dumazet is currently AFK, can we wait for him to return (in about a week) before merging?
Hi Jakub, On 7/12/23 11:45 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 20:41:43 +0800 Abel Wu wrote: >> Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside >> struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. >> >> When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged >> into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so >> the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's >> pressure at all. While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply >> not used. >> >> So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode >> respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed >> use of both. > > Eric Dumazet is currently AFK, can we wait for him to return > (in about a week) before merging? Sure, thanks for providing this information! Best Regards, Abel
Gentle ping :) On 7/11/23 8:41 PM, Abel Wu wrote: > Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside > struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. > > When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged > into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so > the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's > pressure at all. While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply > not used. > > So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode > respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed > use of both. > > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> > --- > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 4 ++-- > mm/vmpressure.c | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 9:59 AM Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> wrote: > > Gentle ping :) I was hoping for some feedback from memcg experts. You claim to fix a bug, please provide a Fixes: tag so that we can involve original patch author. Thanks. > > On 7/11/23 8:41 PM, Abel Wu wrote: > > Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside > > struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. > > > > When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged > > into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so > > the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's > > pressure at all. While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply > > not used. > > > > So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode > > respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed > > use of both. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> > > --- > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 4 ++-- > > mm/vmpressure.c | 8 ++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >
On 7/20/23 4:57 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 9:59 AM Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> wrote: >> >> Gentle ping :) > > I was hoping for some feedback from memcg experts. Me too :) > > You claim to fix a bug, please provide a Fixes: tag so that we can > involve original patch author. Sorry for missing that part, will be added in next version. Fixes: 8e8ae645249b ("mm: memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket pressure") Thanks! Abel
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:41:43PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: > Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside > struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. Hi Abel! > When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged > into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so > the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's > pressure at all. But we still might set memcg->socket_pressure and propagate the pressure, right? If you're changing this, you need to provide a bit more data on why it's a good idea. I'm not saying the current status is perfect, but I think we need a bit more justification for this change. > While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply > not used. > > So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode > respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed > use of both. > > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> > --- > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 4 ++-- > mm/vmpressure.c | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > index 5818af8eca5a..5860c7f316b9 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > @@ -1727,8 +1727,8 @@ void mem_cgroup_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk); > void mem_cgroup_sk_free(struct sock *sk); > static inline bool mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > { > - if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && memcg->tcpmem_pressure) > - return true; > + if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) > + return !!memcg->tcpmem_pressure; So here you can have something like if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) { do { if (time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(memcg->socket_pressure))) return true; } while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg))); } else { return !!READ_ONCE(memcg->socket_pressure); } And, please, add a bold comment here or nearby the socket_pressure definition that it has a different semantics in the legacy and default modes. Overall I think it's a good idea to clean these things up and thank you for working on this. But I wonder if we can make the next step and leave only one mechanism for both cgroup v1 and v2 instead of having this weird setup where memcg->socket_pressure is set differently from different paths on cgroup v1 and v2. Thanks!
Hi Roman, thanks for taking time to have a look! On 7/22/23 8:20 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:41:43PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: >> Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside >> struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. > > Hi Abel! > >> When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged >> into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so >> the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's >> pressure at all. > > But we still might set memcg->socket_pressure and propagate the pressure, > right? Yes, but the pressure comes from memcg->socket_pressure does not mean pressure in socket memory in cgroupv1, which might lead to premature reclamation or throttling on socket memory allocation. As the following example shows: ->memory ->tcpmem limit 10G 10G usage 9G 4G pressure true false the memcg's memory limits are both set to 10G, and the ->memory part is suffering from reclaim pressure while ->tcpmem still has much room for use. I have no idea why should treat the ->tcpmem as under pressure in this scenario, am I missed something? > If you're changing this, you need to provide a bit more data on why it's > a good idea. I'm not saying the current status is perfect, but I think we need > a bit more justification for this change. > >> While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply >> not used. >> >> So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode >> respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed >> use of both. >> >> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> >> --- >> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 4 ++-- >> mm/vmpressure.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h >> index 5818af8eca5a..5860c7f316b9 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h >> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h >> @@ -1727,8 +1727,8 @@ void mem_cgroup_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk); >> void mem_cgroup_sk_free(struct sock *sk); >> static inline bool mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) >> { >> - if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && memcg->tcpmem_pressure) >> - return true; >> + if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) >> + return !!memcg->tcpmem_pressure; > > So here you can have something like > if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) { > do { > if (time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(memcg->socket_pressure))) > return true; > } while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg))); > } else { > return !!READ_ONCE(memcg->socket_pressure); > } Yes, this looks better. > > And, please, add a bold comment here or nearby the socket_pressure definition > that it has a different semantics in the legacy and default modes. Agreed. > > Overall I think it's a good idea to clean these things up and thank you > for working on this. But I wonder if we can make the next step and leave only > one mechanism for both cgroup v1 and v2 instead of having this weird setup > where memcg->socket_pressure is set differently from different paths on cgroup > v1 and v2. There is some difficulty in unifying the mechanism for both cgroup designs. Throttling socket memory allocation when memcg is under pressure only makes sense when socket memory and other usages are sharing the same limit, which is not true for cgroupv1. Thoughts? Thanks & Best, Abel
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: > Hi Roman, thanks for taking time to have a look! > > On 7/22/23 8:20 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:41:43PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: > > > Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside > > > struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. > > > > Hi Abel! > > > > > When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged > > > into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so > > > the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's > > > pressure at all. > > > > But we still might set memcg->socket_pressure and propagate the pressure, > > right? > > Yes, but the pressure comes from memcg->socket_pressure does not mean > pressure in socket memory in cgroupv1, which might lead to premature > reclamation or throttling on socket memory allocation. As the following > example shows: > > ->memory ->tcpmem > limit 10G 10G > usage 9G 4G > pressure true false Yes, now it makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. Then I'd organize the patchset in the following way: 1) cgroup v1-only fix to not throttle tcpmem based on the vmpressure 2) a formal code refactoring > > the memcg's memory limits are both set to 10G, and the ->memory part > is suffering from reclaim pressure while ->tcpmem still has much room > for use. I have no idea why should treat the ->tcpmem as under pressure > in this scenario, am I missed something? > > > If you're changing this, you need to provide a bit more data on why it's > > a good idea. I'm not saying the current status is perfect, but I think we need > > a bit more justification for this change. > > > > > While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply > > > not used. > > > > > > So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode > > > respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed > > > use of both. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> > > > --- > > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 4 ++-- > > > mm/vmpressure.c | 8 ++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > > index 5818af8eca5a..5860c7f316b9 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > > @@ -1727,8 +1727,8 @@ void mem_cgroup_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk); > > > void mem_cgroup_sk_free(struct sock *sk); > > > static inline bool mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > > { > > > - if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && memcg->tcpmem_pressure) > > > - return true; > > > + if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) > > > + return !!memcg->tcpmem_pressure; > > > > So here you can have something like > > if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) { > > do { > > if (time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(memcg->socket_pressure))) > > return true; > > } while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg))); > > } else { > > return !!READ_ONCE(memcg->socket_pressure); > > } > > Yes, this looks better. > > > > > And, please, add a bold comment here or nearby the socket_pressure definition > > that it has a different semantics in the legacy and default modes. > > Agreed. > > > > > Overall I think it's a good idea to clean these things up and thank you > > for working on this. But I wonder if we can make the next step and leave only > > one mechanism for both cgroup v1 and v2 instead of having this weird setup > > where memcg->socket_pressure is set differently from different paths on cgroup > > v1 and v2. > > There is some difficulty in unifying the mechanism for both cgroup > designs. Throttling socket memory allocation when memcg is under > pressure only makes sense when socket memory and other usages are > sharing the same limit, which is not true for cgroupv1. Thoughts? I see... Generally speaking cgroup v1 is considered frozen, so we can leave it as it is, except when it creates an unnecessary complexity in the code. I'm curious, was your work driven by some real-world problem or a desire to clean up the code? Both are valid reasons of course. Thanks!
On 7/26/23 10:56 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: >> Hi Roman, thanks for taking time to have a look! >>> >>>> When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged >>>> into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so >>>> the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's >>>> pressure at all. >>> >>> But we still might set memcg->socket_pressure and propagate the pressure, >>> right? >> >> Yes, but the pressure comes from memcg->socket_pressure does not mean >> pressure in socket memory in cgroupv1, which might lead to premature >> reclamation or throttling on socket memory allocation. As the following >> example shows: >> >> ->memory ->tcpmem >> limit 10G 10G >> usage 9G 4G >> pressure true false > > Yes, now it makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. Cheers! > > Then I'd organize the patchset in the following way: > 1) cgroup v1-only fix to not throttle tcpmem based on the vmpressure > 2) a formal code refactoring OK, I will take a try to re-organize in next version. >>> >>> Overall I think it's a good idea to clean these things up and thank you >>> for working on this. But I wonder if we can make the next step and leave only >>> one mechanism for both cgroup v1 and v2 instead of having this weird setup >>> where memcg->socket_pressure is set differently from different paths on cgroup >>> v1 and v2. >> >> There is some difficulty in unifying the mechanism for both cgroup >> designs. Throttling socket memory allocation when memcg is under >> pressure only makes sense when socket memory and other usages are >> sharing the same limit, which is not true for cgroupv1. Thoughts? > > I see... Generally speaking cgroup v1 is considered frozen, so we can leave it > as it is, except when it creates an unnecessary complexity in the code. Are you suggesting that the 2nd patch can be ignored and keep ->tcpmem_pressure as it is? Or keep the 2nd patch and add some explanation around as you suggested in last reply? > > I'm curious, was your work driven by some real-world problem or a desire to clean > up the code? Both are valid reasons of course. We (a cloud service provider) are migrating users to cgroupv2, but encountered some problems among which the socket memory really puts us in a difficult situation. There is no specific threshold for socket memory in cgroupv2 and relies largely on workloads doing traffic control themselves. Say one workload behaves fine in cgroupv1 with 10G of ->memory and 1G of ->tcpmem, but will suck (or even be OOMed) in cgroupv2 with 11G of ->memory due to burst memory usage on socket. It's rational for the workloads to build some traffic control to better utilize the resources they bought, but from kernel's point of view it's also reasonable to suppress the allocation of socket memory once there is a shortage of free memory, given that performance degradation is better than failure. Currently the mechanism of net-memcg's pressure doesn't work as we expected, please check the discussion in [1]. Besides this, we are also working on mitigating the priority inversion issue introduced by the net protocols' global shared thresholds [2], which has something to do with the net-memcg's pressure. This patchset and maybe some other are byproducts of the above work. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230602081135.75424-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230609082712.34889-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com/ Thanks! Abel
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 04:44:24PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: > On 7/26/23 10:56 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: > > > Hi Roman, thanks for taking time to have a look! > > > > > > > > > When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged > > > > > into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so > > > > > the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's > > > > > pressure at all. > > > > > > > > But we still might set memcg->socket_pressure and propagate the pressure, > > > > right? > > > > > > Yes, but the pressure comes from memcg->socket_pressure does not mean > > > pressure in socket memory in cgroupv1, which might lead to premature > > > reclamation or throttling on socket memory allocation. As the following > > > example shows: > > > > > > ->memory ->tcpmem > > > limit 10G 10G > > > usage 9G 4G > > > pressure true false > > > > Yes, now it makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. > > Cheers! > > > > > Then I'd organize the patchset in the following way: > > 1) cgroup v1-only fix to not throttle tcpmem based on the vmpressure > > 2) a formal code refactoring > > OK, I will take a try to re-organize in next version. Thank you! > > > > > > > > > Overall I think it's a good idea to clean these things up and thank you > > > > for working on this. But I wonder if we can make the next step and leave only > > > > one mechanism for both cgroup v1 and v2 instead of having this weird setup > > > > where memcg->socket_pressure is set differently from different paths on cgroup > > > > v1 and v2. > > > > > > There is some difficulty in unifying the mechanism for both cgroup > > > designs. Throttling socket memory allocation when memcg is under > > > pressure only makes sense when socket memory and other usages are > > > sharing the same limit, which is not true for cgroupv1. Thoughts? > > > > I see... Generally speaking cgroup v1 is considered frozen, so we can leave it > > as it is, except when it creates an unnecessary complexity in the code. > > Are you suggesting that the 2nd patch can be ignored and keep > ->tcpmem_pressure as it is? Or keep the 2nd patch and add some > explanation around as you suggested in last reply? I suggest to split a code refactoring (which is not expected to bring any functional changes) and an actual change of the behavior on cgroup v1. Re the refactoring: I see a lot of value in adding comments and make the code more readable, I don't see that much value in merging two variables. But if it comes organically with the code simplification - nice. > > > > > I'm curious, was your work driven by some real-world problem or a desire to clean > > up the code? Both are valid reasons of course. > > We (a cloud service provider) are migrating users to cgroupv2, > but encountered some problems among which the socket memory > really puts us in a difficult situation. There is no specific > threshold for socket memory in cgroupv2 and relies largely on > workloads doing traffic control themselves. > > Say one workload behaves fine in cgroupv1 with 10G of ->memory > and 1G of ->tcpmem, but will suck (or even be OOMed) in cgroupv2 > with 11G of ->memory due to burst memory usage on socket. > > It's rational for the workloads to build some traffic control > to better utilize the resources they bought, but from kernel's > point of view it's also reasonable to suppress the allocation > of socket memory once there is a shortage of free memory, given > that performance degradation is better than failure. Yeah, I can see it. But Idk if it's too workload-specific to have a single-policy-fits-all-cases approach. E.g. some workloads might prefer to have a portion of pagecache being reclaimed. What do you think? > > Currently the mechanism of net-memcg's pressure doesn't work as > we expected, please check the discussion in [1]. Besides this, > we are also working on mitigating the priority inversion issue > introduced by the net protocols' global shared thresholds [2], > which has something to do with the net-memcg's pressure. This > patchset and maybe some other are byproducts of the above work. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230602081135.75424-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230609082712.34889-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com/ Thanks for the clarification!
On 7/27/23 8:19 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 04:44:24PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: >> On 7/26/23 10:56 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0800, Abel Wu wrote: >>>> Hi Roman, thanks for taking time to have a look! >>>>> >>>>> Overall I think it's a good idea to clean these things up and thank you >>>>> for working on this. But I wonder if we can make the next step and leave only >>>>> one mechanism for both cgroup v1 and v2 instead of having this weird setup >>>>> where memcg->socket_pressure is set differently from different paths on cgroup >>>>> v1 and v2. >>>> >>>> There is some difficulty in unifying the mechanism for both cgroup >>>> designs. Throttling socket memory allocation when memcg is under >>>> pressure only makes sense when socket memory and other usages are >>>> sharing the same limit, which is not true for cgroupv1. Thoughts? >>> >>> I see... Generally speaking cgroup v1 is considered frozen, so we can leave it >>> as it is, except when it creates an unnecessary complexity in the code. >> >> Are you suggesting that the 2nd patch can be ignored and keep >> ->tcpmem_pressure as it is? Or keep the 2nd patch and add some >> explanation around as you suggested in last reply? > > I suggest to split a code refactoring (which is not expected to bring any > functional changes) and an actual change of the behavior on cgroup v1. > Re the refactoring: I see a lot of value in adding comments and make the > code more readable, I don't see that much value in merging two variables. > But if it comes organically with the code simplification - nice. I see, thanks for the clarification! > >>> I'm curious, was your work driven by some real-world problem or a desire to clean >>> up the code? Both are valid reasons of course. >> >> We (a cloud service provider) are migrating users to cgroupv2, >> but encountered some problems among which the socket memory >> really puts us in a difficult situation. There is no specific >> threshold for socket memory in cgroupv2 and relies largely on >> workloads doing traffic control themselves. >> >> Say one workload behaves fine in cgroupv1 with 10G of ->memory >> and 1G of ->tcpmem, but will suck (or even be OOMed) in cgroupv2 >> with 11G of ->memory due to burst memory usage on socket. >> >> It's rational for the workloads to build some traffic control >> to better utilize the resources they bought, but from kernel's >> point of view it's also reasonable to suppress the allocation >> of socket memory once there is a shortage of free memory, given >> that performance degradation is better than failure. > > Yeah, I can see it. But Idk if it's too workload-specific to have > a single-policy-fits-all-cases approach. > E.g. some workloads might prefer to have a portion of pagecache > being reclaimed. > What do you think? Now the memcg is considered to be under pressure if the number of pages reclaimed is much less than desired. I doubt it could be a win in such case to spend more time on reclaiming while letting socket continue to allocate memory (which could make things worse), compared to relieving reclaim pressure and putting time on its real work. Best, Abel
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 5818af8eca5a..5860c7f316b9 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -1727,8 +1727,8 @@ void mem_cgroup_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk); void mem_cgroup_sk_free(struct sock *sk); static inline bool mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { - if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && memcg->tcpmem_pressure) - return true; + if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) + return !!memcg->tcpmem_pressure; do { if (time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(memcg->socket_pressure))) return true; diff --git a/mm/vmpressure.c b/mm/vmpressure.c index b52644771cc4..22c6689d9302 100644 --- a/mm/vmpressure.c +++ b/mm/vmpressure.c @@ -244,6 +244,14 @@ void vmpressure(gfp_t gfp, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool tree, if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) return; + /* + * The in-kernel users only care about the reclaim efficiency + * for this @memcg rather than the whole subtree, and there + * isn't and won't be any in-kernel user in a legacy cgroup. + */ + if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && !tree) + return; + vmpr = memcg_to_vmpressure(memcg); /*
Now there are two indicators of socket memory pressure sit inside struct mem_cgroup, socket_pressure and tcpmem_pressure. When in legacy mode aka. cgroupv1, the socket memory is charged into a separate counter memcg->tcpmem rather than ->memory, so the reclaim pressure of the memcg has nothing to do with socket's pressure at all. While for default mode, the ->tcpmem is simply not used. So {socket,tcpmem}_pressure are only used in default/legacy mode respectively. This patch fixes the pieces of code that make mixed use of both. Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 4 ++-- mm/vmpressure.c | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)