From patchwork Wed May 18 15:40:36 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: =?utf-8?q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= X-Patchwork-Id: 12853808 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C61FC433FE for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 15:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239528AbiERPk5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53000 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239509AbiERPkx (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:53 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46AD52E9C2; Wed, 18 May 2022 08:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB77A1F8CD; Wed, 18 May 2022 15:40:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1652888447; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=p/VfT98eDaSoE5VMKiC0q6OouDpijrF5gH7LM1N1KeA=; b=k2d+vXCBAm/e+L/WEhM4ig/Az5Mm4+rmJrHEMYxxue2I23dt8xecICNQ2v5ID3l+LK6epR awB4numSb8SgyTXxoNR0VrKF0ze7zsp6jXtQKezfLUuWVv/S6BgX1aYtPu9KNvFtOnQ+8y tiE8oXjgMdidP4GubiG3j7iSm0CF/A0= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BE4013ADC; Wed, 18 May 2022 15:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id EKYKIX8ThWJDUgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 18 May 2022 15:40:47 +0000 From: =?utf-8?q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= To: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Richard Palethorpe Subject: [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:40:36 +0200 Message-Id: <20220518154037.18819-4-mkoutny@suse.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.35.3 In-Reply-To: <20220518154037.18819-1-mkoutny@suse.com> References: <20220518154037.18819-1-mkoutny@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org The numbers are not easy to derive in a closed form (certainly mere protections ratios do not apply), therefore use a simulation to obtain expected numbers. The new values make the protection tests succeed more precisely. % run as: octave-cli script % % Input configurations % ------------------- % E parent effective protection % n nominal protection of siblings set at the givel level % c current consumption -,,- % example from testcase (values in GB) E = 50 / 1024; n = [75 25 0 500 ] / 1024; c = [50 50 50 0] / 1024; % Reclaim parameters % ------------------ % Minimal reclaim amount (GB) cluster = 32*4 / 2**20; % Reclaim coefficient (think as 0.5^sc->priority) alpha = .1 % Simulation parameters % --------------------- epsilon = 1e-7; timeout = 1000; % Simulation loop % --------------------- % Simulation assumes siblings consumed the initial amount of memory (w/out % reclaim) and then the reclaim starts, all memory is reclaimable, i.e. treated % same. It simulates only non-low reclaim and assumes all memory.min = 0. ch = []; eh = []; rh = []; for t = 1:timeout % low_usage u = min(c, n); siblings = sum(u); % effective_protection() protected = min(n, c); % start with nominal e = protected * min(1, E / siblings); % normalize overcommit % recursive protection unclaimed = max(0, E - siblings); parent_overuse = sum(c) - siblings; if (unclaimed > 0 && parent_overuse > 0) overuse = max(0, c - protected); e += unclaimed * (overuse / parent_overuse); endif % get_scan_count() r = alpha * c; % assume all memory is in a single LRU list % commit 1bc63fb1272b ("mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection") sz = max(e, c); r .*= (1 - (e+epsilon) ./ (sz+epsilon)); % uncomment to debug prints % e, c, r % nothing to reclaim, reached equilibrium if max(r) < epsilon break; endif % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX r = max(r, (r > epsilon) .* cluster); % XXX here I do parallel reclaim of all siblings % in reality reclaim is serialized and each sibling recalculates own residual c = max(c - r, 0); ch = [ch ; c]; eh = [eh ; e]; rh = [rh ; r]; endfor t c, e Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný --- .../selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 20 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index eba252fa64ac..9ffacf024bbd 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -260,9 +260,9 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const char *cgroup) * memory pressure in it. * * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/C memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, and checks @@ -365,10 +365,10 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0) @@ -417,9 +417,9 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *root) * * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: * A/B memory.current ~= 50M - * A/B/ memory.current ~= 33M - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 + * A/B/ memory.current ~= 29M + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 * * After that it tries to allocate more than there is * unprotected memory in A available, @@ -512,10 +512,10 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) goto cleanup; - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) goto cleanup; if (c[3] != 0)