From patchwork Tue May 5 08:41:26 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Yafang Shao X-Patchwork-Id: 11528425 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00072912 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:42:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B419C2068E for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:42:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="D97jDPF7" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B419C2068E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C3D258E00A1; Tue, 5 May 2020 04:42:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BED048E0058; Tue, 5 May 2020 04:42:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id ADB4B8E00A1; Tue, 5 May 2020 04:42:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0132.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.132]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928CD8E0058 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 04:42:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF8D824934B for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:42:17 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76782023514.11.yard08_13edf0620605c X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,36616b20b9e68ece,d41d8cd98f00b204,laoar.shao@gmail.com,,RULES_HIT:2:41:355:379:541:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1345:1359:1437:1535:1605:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2897:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4049:4120:4250:4321:4470:4605:5007:6261:6653:7514:7875:7903:7904:9413:10004:11026:11473:11658:11914:12043:12219:12291:12295:12296:12297:12438:12517:12519:12555:12664:12679:12683:12895:13149:13161:13229:13230:13255:14096:14394:14687:21080:21433:21444:21451:21627:21666:21740:21939:21966:21990:30054:30056:30064:30074:30090,0,RBL:209.85.216.67:@gmail.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.50.0.100 66.100.201.100,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fp,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:23,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: yard08_13edf0620605c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9634 Received: from mail-pj1-f67.google.com (mail-pj1-f67.google.com [209.85.216.67]) by imf42.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f67.google.com with SMTP id t40so714124pjb.3 for ; Tue, 05 May 2020 01:42:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; bh=uNXSdEUBpc3xWP7djY2ze56IO2uIUgfCKO2NyW30Dck=; b=D97jDPF7pJRvvGaVoCW6UlzjpMr7H5DOZlC/aGmGyv/FNHecOYKhA3muG5v4zgdTVT Fehu8BpMixpRo7d6C31z2/Qwp/NH5uZr6nB5S70I9Gzf9VlFfydxdf4A/a8x+olV/Caq rcFRCjUqU/Y0wfAGf5si8tR6BNje9J9ZHiMqizH4wjXJ6Rx3JZ2N6Kkm5iDV5M8rX23u wP+c6naS2GRNThO0ONgdc0rkfCdFU+gVJY0Hyry0BuluwqYUaoPA3nnWgmqA1TUXq4dK 3rOjbQNvP+NRgdfz6J5LXZA4TMN2WRIxNdmeTKmay3secfl5lVnthmCJcUmo7d8mFlp3 +Cdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=uNXSdEUBpc3xWP7djY2ze56IO2uIUgfCKO2NyW30Dck=; b=EVyMwamhIpOtRHOOW+Qphk5/v/eZPsy3OtQyDnvzlvOgDAo6zJd3GsZI3K5McW3vKs 6SE1NFOu5ydLNVa66ZZzqEz13k6QI++4QmZ5nyA3d8TrttMhWz3XeS9D9H/lB9B6ZVOb 2Bil5I2swWBRSQ9zdPRmnGD6qIvZnMNsqJO646zLasIZrNeRvcdSvr44wEAcSl50wPy/ xmBxqGWM0cDey/5tcvEneCmxj9eEfeEEVSMs2maj3hcdgU+RwqP9GWjW8OicHmD+5E9q Wh28p/YSwDRn37xdYiMySXaK/tARh1J10+2vmATTaoOMqOMiZha1sblsTJxJJLt4Abfs C4hQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY+5aNeqfKfxgHgse5tF96eIW1hUd69ULGNN4atfxepRYePChwA 8JTPPrbmJepMzf2B2XCcblE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKkl2yBbJWZ+3+d391ViVXNqxbwJdeakoqTLvcOVr7z8+Tmv4ZWBy7VlPgL2n0NiX/wCcsUgA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b708:: with SMTP id d8mr2006175pls.69.1588668136028; Tue, 05 May 2020 01:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([203.100.54.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p190sm1443802pfp.207.2020.05.05.01.42.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 05 May 2020 01:42:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Yafang Shao To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, chris@chrisdown.name, guro@fb.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yafang Shao Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm, memcg: Avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 04:41:26 -0400 Message-Id: <20200505084127.12923-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.18.1 In-Reply-To: <20200505084127.12923-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> References: <20200505084127.12923-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: A cgroup can have both memory protection and a memory limit to isolate it from its siblings in both directions - for example, to prevent it from being shrunk below 2G under high pressure from outside, but also from growing beyond 4G under low pressure. Commit 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") implemented proportional scan pressure so that multiple siblings in excess of their protection settings don't get reclaimed equally but instead in accordance to their unprotected portion. During limit reclaim, this proportionality shouldn't apply of course: there is no competition, all pressure is from within the cgroup and should be applied as such. Reclaim should operate at full efficiency. However, mem_cgroup_protected() never expected anybody to look at the effective protection values when it indicated that the cgroup is above its protection. As a result, a query during limit reclaim may return stale protection values that were calculated by a previous reclaim cycle in which the cgroup did have siblings. When this happens, reclaim is unnecessarily hesitant and potentially slow to meet the desired limit. In theory this could lead to premature OOM kills, although it's not obvious this has occurred in practice. Workaround the problem by special casing reclaim roots in mem_cgroup_protection. These memcgs are never participating in the reclaim protection because the reclaim is internal. We have to ignore effective protection values for reclaim roots because mem_cgroup_protected might be called from racing reclaim contexts with different roots. Calculation is relying on root -> leaf tree traversal therefore top-down reclaim protection invariants should hold. The only exception is the reclaim root which should have effective protection set to 0 but that would be problematic for the following setup: Let's have global and A's reclaim in parallel: | A (low=2G, usage = 3G, max = 3G, children_low_usage = 1.5G) |\ | C (low = 1G, usage = 2.5G) B (low = 1G, usage = 0.5G) for A reclaim we have B.elow = B.low C.elow = C.low For the global reclaim A.elow = A.low B.elow = min(B.usage, B.low) because children_low_usage <= A.elow C.elow = min(C.usage, C.low) With the effective values resetting we have A reclaim A.elow = 0 B.elow = B.low C.elow = C.low and global reclaim could see the above and then B.elow = C.elow = 0 because children_low_usage > A.elow Which means that protected memcgs would get reclaimed. In future we would like to make mem_cgroup_protected more robust against racing reclaim contexts but that is likely more complex solution than this simple workaround. [hannes@cmpxchg.org - large part of the changelog] [mhocko@suse.com - workaround explanation] [chris@chrisdown.name - retitle] Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao Acked-by: Michal Hocko Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Chris Down Acked-by: Roman Gushchin --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++++++ mm/vmscan.c | 3 ++- 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index d275c72c4f8e..c07548ce26cb 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -344,12 +344,49 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(void) return !cgroup_subsys_enabled(memory_cgrp_subsys); } -static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, +static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool in_low_reclaim) { if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) return 0; + /* + * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim. + * We are special casing this specific case here because + * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep + * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for + * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is + * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU) + * which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim + * but a different value for external reclaim. + * + * Example + * Let's have global and A's reclaim in parallel: + * | + * A (low=2G, usage = 3G, max = 3G, children_low_usage = 1.5G) + * |\ + * | C (low = 1G, usage = 2.5G) + * B (low = 1G, usage = 0.5G) + * + * For the global reclaim + * A.elow = A.low + * B.elow = min(B.usage, B.low) because children_low_usage <= A.elow + * C.elow = min(C.usage, C.low) + * + * With the effective values resetting we have A reclaim + * A.elow = 0 + * B.elow = B.low + * C.elow = C.low + * + * If the global reclaim races with A's reclaim then + * B.elow = C.elow = 0 because children_low_usage > A.elow) + * is possible and reclaiming B would be violating the protection. + * + */ + if (root == memcg) + return 0; + if (in_low_reclaim) return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin); @@ -835,7 +872,8 @@ static inline void memcg_memory_event_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, { } -static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, +static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool in_low_reclaim) { return 0; diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 5beea03dd58a..1206682edc1a 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -6388,6 +6388,14 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, if (!root) root = root_mem_cgroup; + + /* + * Effective values of the reclaim targets are ignored so they + * can be stale. Have a look at mem_cgroup_protection for more + * details. + * TODO: calculation should be more robust so that we do not need + * that special casing. + */ if (memcg == root) return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index b06868fc4926..4d3027ac131c 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2346,7 +2346,8 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, unsigned long protection; lruvec_size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx); - protection = mem_cgroup_protection(memcg, + protection = mem_cgroup_protection(sc->target_mem_cgroup, + memcg, sc->memcg_low_reclaim); if (protection) {