From patchwork Mon Jul 13 11:05:54 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Chris Down X-Patchwork-Id: 11659481 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 576B814DD for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1654D20773 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="AT52M10G" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1654D20773 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chrisdown.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4DFF98D0005; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4C0AD8D0001; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:05:58 -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 3A65C8D0005; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:05:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0037.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.37]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232C98D0001 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5DA180AD81F for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:05:57 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77032772754.28.hook41_221366226ee7 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5196C11 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:05:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Summary: 1,0,0,d16e648653a2a708,d41d8cd98f00b204,chris@chrisdown.name,,RULES_HIT:2:41:355:379:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1312:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1516:1518:1519:1535:1593:1594:1595:1596:1605:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2897:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4049:4120:4250:4321:4470:4605:5007:6261:6653:7514:7576:7875:7903:7904:10004:11026:11473:11658:11914:12043:12219:12291:12295:12296:12297:12438:12517:12519:12555:12664:12679:12683:12895:12986:13149:13161:13229:13230:13255:13439:13895:14096:14097:14394:21080:21433:21444:21451:21627:21740:21939:21966:21990:30054:30056:30064:30074:30090,0,RBL:209.85.208.68:@chrisdown.name:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.2.0.100 66.100.201.201;04yg6osm5ae1fatiyjf8becbk9mzoycduwi3gd9mjjfx46ca48qauuchk4scfth.qxo3sgfpnjwgndknkmxje8qzi9qaezfq3uhhzjhubmqjj5tdd4ncafcxnu1y47n.w-lbl8.mailshell.net-223.238.255.100,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fp,MSBL:0,DNSB L:none,C X-HE-Tag: hook41_221366226ee7 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9853 Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com (mail-ed1-f68.google.com [209.85.208.68]) by imf35.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id bm28so11154635edb.2 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:05:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=aFXMEHhkBKemwA/QoFtxiRqyIHqOIfwBr0LYDpNQG/w=; b=AT52M10Glz6TiDoZ4uGS3qPTmg2vqCLijtoFBQ8ribBod0g/b47E9eyS4hn+Po7CIZ TfzqlI8FPBvDocG12P2yQK9i58fLZPBMa/ODoiYM4PgyrcNGC48huN8RO/sJncf/9QA/ Hz1D17cq1FNCR9cfEpnzBpuSAXsA5oUre28c8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=aFXMEHhkBKemwA/QoFtxiRqyIHqOIfwBr0LYDpNQG/w=; b=CKJyzHQAoqBjYelaOlLKBk7s/TZ2gvkz+W3jVpYbyf7afthv2Cxezjsv31J6bSQT9Q fvWM92IRL72S35U5rTBi700pJEIMhhfQb9vCtKqZK4mCXeof6grEyNllBRHIHwNIANd2 Zhw4SUls/Xi70UgGt5o/5wXLT6PLdHoEC0znGbQQRddOhYXm1vdqh69VFGsQupdiOQvt oHDXCRXqfk2TO2uGUvH2b9ENBjIDmXMRjt3/jrEuriceXH37+zJoakbI4L1vhL60eX9U GnZZO+obzSBWiiuno9DqO73Ouj1eaHAaiMpQWc7P+SvDbTjJJ8bZKvPWUETyIVQcnXJm uO0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530nH84ruI9ztSTKZMgleUAaHnTVE3RtdYwb+FBaGN7waHNsVYCC RDGouj2k7XSI/TyPhVHoJMqd4A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwB4lLUUI0SASDFJIPJn2ZlyEEUDi9MRdcYhRBhVhW9BwKCmdfSLCoSFZ4vG91w9G9uO+W6JA== X-Received: by 2002:a50:ab52:: with SMTP id t18mr92428592edc.195.1594638356061; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c093:400::5:ef88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bq8sm9165988ejb.103.2020.07.13.04.05.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:05:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Yafang Shao X-Google-Original-From: Yafang Shao Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:05:54 +0100 To: Andrew Morton Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Yafang Shao , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm, memcg: Avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection Message-ID: <044fb8ecffd001c7905d27c0c2ad998069fdc396.1594638158.git.chris@chrisdown.name> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.5 (2020-06-23) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AA5196C11 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 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: From: Yafang Shao 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 Signed-off-by: Chris Down --- 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 b8f52a3fed90..33d834a187e5 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -363,12 +363,49 @@ 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); @@ -899,7 +936,8 @@ 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 0145a77aa074..21b620e36aa0 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -6566,6 +6566,14 @@ 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 5215840ee217..89921a12acae 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2326,7 +2326,8 @@ 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) { From patchwork Mon Jul 13 11:06:01 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Chris Down X-Patchwork-Id: 11659483 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 F375113B6 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F8C2083B for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="LFQgUlJ+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B2F8C2083B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chrisdown.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E7BB28D0006; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E2C2F8D0001; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:06:04 -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 CF4A58D0006; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:06:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0221.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.221]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5178D0001 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D291F0A for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:06:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77032773048.05.fruit96_1b08b7826ee7 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C65418017AD5 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:06:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Summary: 1,0,0,857297f06c7edeea,d41d8cd98f00b204,chris@chrisdown.name,,RULES_HIT:2:41:69:355:379:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1312:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1516:1518:1519:1535:1593:1594:1595:1596:1605:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:2731:2890:2897:2898:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4042:4049:4120:4321:4605:5007:6261:6653:7903:9040:9592:10004:11026:11232:11473:11658:11914:12043:12291:12295:12296:12297:12438:12517:12519:12555:12683:12895:12986:13255:13439:13895:14096:14097:14394:21063:21080:21444:21450:21451:21627:21795:21966:21990:30001:30041:30045:30051:30054:30064:30070:30090,0,RBL:209.85.218.67:@chrisdown.name:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.2.0.100 66.100.201.201;04y8sbhemnowakdngg7mmjg6enyu9yc879im85ooagzjypgwp1bx9qrbi9ir99p.my619rfa4me673553y9r5uimfd96adkmt54wawmfcw911ni98dn831jczx4ydxj.g-lbl8.mailshell.net-223.238.255.100,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fp,MSBL:0,DNSBL:non e,Custom X-HE-Tag: fruit96_1b08b7826ee7 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9708 Received: from mail-ej1-f67.google.com (mail-ej1-f67.google.com [209.85.218.67]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:06:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f67.google.com with SMTP id br7so2649541ejb.5 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:06:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ZoFkzkrQ309RFK+OEsYyChcl3CTS19ns9lFUyyEZu6I=; b=LFQgUlJ+p3zW2HOohTZcQq0P9OZqCn0CZRV0HGSvImtjSzSUtVppG/KQiK1YkTZHTp 6TWBAPc17Yp4sU9vBHDYzg44bvvA9m2lQNSI6McRsXDS1EX+I76sdFvmMwKfKqB3HB2y wkBxcblZOEGjILE15qynikXnOrpBBMbCnWIO4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ZoFkzkrQ309RFK+OEsYyChcl3CTS19ns9lFUyyEZu6I=; b=s7r6MFdglF23bjOdfR6QxKa3mQNPaiIaqF98avknDUgD2XY6aeFXDMGxUWDIh7bqUP DMeX8soMDhvWxbD17AUcNXgunOb+SkiCOQDnH67ZeGfhzryUF+FUJiE/DntjEYHOfeLD OukNiIaWYgSt8clbq0U9FrK6WRqSnJhbvYEXbZ9gkhLk5HkL+DPDGDjmdOVGZDP7FhNs ijhZeqMUUqouW5fMQZKXkQCUcbTDMZIydqNxAFAnZdUvCrPJzQd75IaqNIP4fMo+xNIX v4QqAUlV/RYrNl/DncCrx4VxHMzKxbWY4E2oFuxIkQJnxT7FxzeriEjKKUGEQK4a0y0H D9fw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532jORShPcBQpzXEYKvSfdehZZumSqyhaP8LT4OPNKUpARrNxBgw zgivE1zeEScvcGsi8AXkgVSuVw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8VC1E7arfSO0GtUNoH/+MOB0zhtWuPG7aUY/otYk3jFdjhA+LKvkFN4VSahhnVp2L/73NfQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:aac9:: with SMTP id kt9mr68370630ejb.488.1594638362470; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c093:400::5:ef88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d16sm9318965ejo.31.2020.07.13.04.06.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 04:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:06:01 +0100 From: Chris Down To: Andrew Morton Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Yafang Shao , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm, memcg: Decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.5 (2020-06-23) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4C65418017AD5 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 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: mem_cgroup_protected currently is both used to set effective low and min and return a mem_cgroup_protection based on the result. As a user, this can be a little unexpected: it appears to be a simple predicate function, if not for the big warning in the comment above about the order in which it must be executed. This change makes it so that we separate the state mutations from the actual protection checks, which makes it more obvious where we need to be careful mutating internal state, and where we are simply checking and don't need to worry about that. [mhocko@suse.com - don't check protection on root memcgs] Signed-off-by: Chris Down Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Michal Hocko Cc: Roman Gushchin --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- mm/memcontrol.c | 28 +++++--------------- mm/vmscan.c | 17 +++--------- 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 33d834a187e5..d7887888ce99 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -55,12 +55,6 @@ enum memcg_memory_event { MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS, }; -enum mem_cgroup_protection { - MEMCG_PROT_NONE, - MEMCG_PROT_LOW, - MEMCG_PROT_MIN, -}; - struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie { pg_data_t *pgdat; unsigned int generation; @@ -413,8 +407,36 @@ static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow)); } -enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, - struct mem_cgroup *memcg); +void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg); + +static inline bool mem_cgroup_supports_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + /* + * The root memcg doesn't account charges, and doesn't support + * protection. + */ + return !mem_cgroup_disabled() && !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg); + +} + +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg)) + return false; + + return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow) >= + page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); +} + +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg)) + return false; + + return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin) >= + page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); +} int mem_cgroup_charge(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm, gfp_t gfp_mask); @@ -943,10 +965,19 @@ static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, return 0; } -static inline enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected( - struct mem_cgroup *root, struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { - return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; +} + +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + return false; +} + +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + return false; } static inline int mem_cgroup_charge(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm, diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 21b620e36aa0..1f101078b217 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -6548,21 +6548,15 @@ static unsigned long effective_protection(unsigned long usage, * * WARNING: This function is not stateless! It can only be used as part * of a top-down tree iteration, not for isolated queries. - * - * Returns one of the following: - * MEMCG_PROT_NONE: cgroup memory is not protected - * MEMCG_PROT_LOW: cgroup memory is protected as long there is - * an unprotected supply of reclaimable memory from other cgroups. - * MEMCG_PROT_MIN: cgroup memory is protected */ -enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, - struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { unsigned long usage, parent_usage; struct mem_cgroup *parent; if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) - return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; + return; if (!root) root = root_mem_cgroup; @@ -6575,21 +6569,21 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, * that special casing. */ if (memcg == root) - return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; + return; usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); if (!usage) - return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; + return; parent = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg); /* No parent means a non-hierarchical mode on v1 memcg */ if (!parent) - return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; + return; if (parent == root) { memcg->memory.emin = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.min); memcg->memory.elow = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.low); - goto out; + return; } parent_usage = page_counter_read(&parent->memory); @@ -6603,14 +6597,6 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root, READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.low), READ_ONCE(parent->memory.elow), atomic_long_read(&parent->memory.children_low_usage))); - -out: - if (usage <= memcg->memory.emin) - return MEMCG_PROT_MIN; - else if (usage <= memcg->memory.elow) - return MEMCG_PROT_LOW; - else - return MEMCG_PROT_NONE; } /** diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 89921a12acae..626bdde485b3 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2615,14 +2615,15 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) unsigned long reclaimed; unsigned long scanned; - switch (mem_cgroup_protected(target_memcg, memcg)) { - case MEMCG_PROT_MIN: + mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg); + + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) { /* * Hard protection. * If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM. */ continue; - case MEMCG_PROT_LOW: + } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg)) { /* * Soft protection. * Respect the protection only as long as @@ -2634,16 +2635,6 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) continue; } memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW); - break; - case MEMCG_PROT_NONE: - /* - * All protection thresholds breached. We may - * still choose to vary the scan pressure - * applied based on by how much the cgroup in - * question has exceeded its protection - * thresholds (see get_scan_count). - */ - break; } reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;