@@ -6236,9 +6236,7 @@ struct cgroup_subsys memory_cgrp_subsys = {
* elow = min( memory.low, parent->elow * ------------------ ),
* siblings_low_usage
*
- * | memory.current, if memory.current < memory.low
- * low_usage = |
- * | 0, otherwise.
+ * low_usage = min(memory.low, memory.current)
*
*
* Such definition of the effective memory.low provides the expected
@@ -23,11 +23,7 @@ static void propagate_protected_usage(struct page_counter *c,
return;
if (c->min || atomic_long_read(&c->min_usage)) {
- if (usage <= c->min)
- protected = usage;
- else
- protected = 0;
-
+ protected = min(usage, c->min);
old_protected = atomic_long_xchg(&c->min_usage, protected);
delta = protected - old_protected;
if (delta)
@@ -35,11 +31,7 @@ static void propagate_protected_usage(struct page_counter *c,
}
if (c->low || atomic_long_read(&c->low_usage)) {
- if (usage <= c->low)
- protected = usage;
- else
- protected = 0;
-
+ protected = min(usage, c->low);
old_protected = atomic_long_xchg(&c->low_usage, protected);
delta = protected - old_protected;
if (delta)
When memory.low is overcommitted - i.e. the children claim more protection than their shared ancestor grants them - the allowance is distributed in proportion to how much each sibling uses their own declared protection: low_usage = min(memory.low, memory.current) elow = parent_elow * (low_usage / siblings_low_usage) However, siblings_low_usage is not the sum of all low_usages. It sums up the usages of *only those cgroups that are within their memory.low* That means that low_usage can be *bigger* than siblings_low_usage, and consequently the total protection afforded to the children can be bigger than what the ancestor grants the subtree. Consider three groups where two are in excess of their protection: A/memory.low = 10G A/A1/memory.low = 10G, memory.current = 20G A/A2/memory.low = 10G, memory.current = 20G A/A3/memory.low = 10G, memory.current = 8G siblings_low_usage = 8G (only A3 contributes) A1/elow = parent_elow(10G) * low_usage(10G) / siblings_low_usage(8G) = 12.5G -> 10G A2/elow = parent_elow(10G) * low_usage(10G) / siblings_low_usage(8G) = 12.5G -> 10G A3/elow = parent_elow(10G) * low_usage(8G) / siblings_low_usage(8G) = 10.0G (the 12.5G are capped to the explicit memory.low setting of 10G) With that, the sum of all awarded protection below A is 30G, when A only grants 10G for the entire subtree. What does this mean in practice? A1 and A2 would still be in excess of their 10G allowance and would be reclaimed, whereas A3 would not. As they eventually drop below their protection setting, they would be counted in siblings_low_usage again and the error would right itself. When reclaim was applied in a binary fashion (cgroup is reclaimed when it's above its protection, otherwise it's skipped) this would actually work out just fine. However, since 1bc63fb1272b ("mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection"), reclaim pressure is scaled to how much a cgroup is above its protection. As a result this calculation error unduly skews pressure away from A1 and A2 toward the rest of the system. But why did we do it like this in the first place? The reasoning behind exempting groups in excess from siblings_low_usage was to go after them first during reclaim in an overcommitted subtree: A/memory.low = 2G, memory.current = 4G A/A1/memory.low = 3G, memory.current = 2G A/A2/memory.low = 1G, memory.current = 2G siblings_low_usage = 2G (only A1 contributes) A1/elow = parent_elow(2G) * low_usage(2G) / siblings_low_usage(2G) = 2G A2/elow = parent_elow(2G) * low_usage(1G) / siblings_low_usage(2G) = 1G While the children combined are overcomitting A and are technically both at fault, A2 is actively declaring unprotected memory and we would like to reclaim that first. However, while this sounds like a noble goal on the face of it, it doesn't make much difference in actual memory distribution: Because A is overcommitted, reclaim will not stop once A2 gets pushed back to within its allowance; we'll have to reclaim A1 either way. The end result is still that protection is distributed proportionally, with A1 getting 3/4 (1.5G) and A2 getting 1/4 (0.5G) of A's allowance. [ If A weren't overcommitted, it wouldn't make a difference since each cgroup would just get the protection it declares: A/memory.low = 2G, memory.current = 3G A/A1/memory.low = 1G, memory.current = 1G A/A2/memory.low = 1G, memory.current = 2G With the current calculation: siblings_low_usage = 1G (only A1 contributes) A1/elow = parent_elow(2G) * low_usage(1G) / siblings_low_usage(1G) = 2G -> 1G A2/elow = parent_elow(2G) * low_usage(1G) / siblings_low_usage(1G) = 2G -> 1G Including excess groups in siblings_low_usage: siblings_low_usage = 2G A1/elow = parent_elow(2G) * low_usage(1G) / siblings_low_usage(2G) = 1G -> 1G A2/elow = parent_elow(2G) * low_usage(1G) / siblings_low_usage(2G) = 1G -> 1G ] Simplify the calculation and fix the proportional reclaim bug by including excess cgroups in siblings_low_usage. After this patch, the effective memory.low distribution from the example above would be as follows: A/memory.low = 10G A/A1/memory.low = 10G, memory.current = 20G A/A2/memory.low = 10G, memory.current = 20G A/A3/memory.low = 10G, memory.current = 8G siblings_low_usage = 28G A1/elow = parent_elow(10G) * low_usage(10G) / siblings_low_usage(28G) = 3.5G A2/elow = parent_elow(10G) * low_usage(10G) / siblings_low_usage(28G) = 3.5G A3/elow = parent_elow(10G) * low_usage(8G) / siblings_low_usage(28G) = 2.8G Fixes: 1bc63fb1272b ("mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection") Fixes: 230671533d64 ("mm: memory.low hierarchical behavior") Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> Acked-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> --- mm/memcontrol.c | 4 +--- mm/page_counter.c | 12 ++---------- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)