From patchwork Sun Feb 23 09:31:34 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Yafang Shao X-Patchwork-Id: 11398753 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 ED301930 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:32:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBCB208C3 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:32:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="IISaJv5V" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org ADBCB208C3 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 928786B0008; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 04:32:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8B2BE6B000A; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 04:32:13 -0500 (EST) 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 77A996B000C; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 04:32:13 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0151.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.151]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614626B0008 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 04:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2734DB1 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:32:13 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76520875746.27.beds61_306475b65744c X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,a7f351fcf77b1e36,d41d8cd98f00b204,laoar.shao@gmail.com,,RULES_HIT:2:41:355:379:541:800:960:965:966:973:988:989:1260:1345:1359:1437:1535:1605:1730:1747:1777:1792:1801:2196:2198:2199:2200:2393:2553:2559:2562:2693:2897:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4049:4120:4250:4321:4385:4390:4395:4470:4605:5007:6261:6653:7514:7903:9010:9121:9413:10004:11026:11232:11473:11658:11914:12043:12048:12291:12296:12297:12438:12517:12519:12555:12683:13161:13180:13229:14096:14394:14687:21080:21444:21450:21451:21611:21627:21666:21796:21990:30036:30054:30090,0,RBL:209.85.214.196:@gmail.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-66.100.201.100 62.50.0.100,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fp,MSBL:0,DNSBL:neutral,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:24,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: beds61_306475b65744c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9066 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com (mail-pl1-f196.google.com [209.85.214.196]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id p11so2739582plq.10 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:32:12 -0800 (PST) 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=UPCguODQNHlafe6Q1lmQMxoxQpO6G2fyl/mROhgUGYE=; b=IISaJv5V/UKla+SEV1G+kAQgN76/AXuT7oFueJr0W5wOG0eAVr2UyRR/E8cie/iGsx YN2PEOLDHRSAsv5X9kh8Xy1GpjRwwW6KKKRWoZ+zs0aFirAKj0s0ML+coU/QNBRDT1j9 1F0PjQywKjQbL4GNulxMxHwZDatmkW3Y5fj7JT5U23cwqLpHZqoX9x3hX5JhhiTEmI9n BciESIc9pCxOiZdv9jVxcQqf1WDB+o2ajeldvw7txXopjsGm959bGrNpps2ecX8X9BIV o+PQV98f+Kt0VVuwNbTEQ0zcYYP4bnFfNG7m5FQ5VSVgyXurMZceZI9WmV0X/FYWdA+b Kizg== 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=UPCguODQNHlafe6Q1lmQMxoxQpO6G2fyl/mROhgUGYE=; b=StRB4kRV6z3wW2Dks0K1QDgTPwBoWVOEFjNHFWOQxQl/9I8OTHhqBJ7VQAk3q8lD2b TzOtLw3pQx+CPZOKwScQIA1a6epHEbvL9e+BoltaVYbU0+ZAomx/YB1rvBkET0mru6Uw QHsFXYslXB+OWN76rEgY5pij8BOQMQz6VHA9wL6FkkfsyLI6dO4H60dx7FT5VvnEyy1K Hw82RV+ZEskaROgkCY6FC12nAvswctPWwYbcVg4IvGpf/ScLYjTkywHamvpQLHX9Ell3 QG3T78XVf8UagA01umWCZkxzvmvRva1A/s4ocsOFu6XctTSyPONdXv717/2kH1OQ2Gyw Q+7A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUySNhYx1xYDDtGFlLwWsOoIG6pRXgTln/zl+HT6YMv5dcswBPm SOevISJsaHXkSmdQeIM/jtU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7xMZz6ALe2Ma9WgplkMwhuaaRnU6/TRKfjbD9wssoNU8DPB1T/EsDFmWaSf9rCFRZW0peHA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8bc7:: with SMTP id r7mr45076125plo.12.1582450331351; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:32:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from dev.localdomain ([203.100.54.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t19sm8346011pgg.23.2020.02.23.01.32.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:32:10 -0800 (PST) From: Yafang Shao To: dchinner@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, guro@fb.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Yafang Shao Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] inode: protect page cache from freeing inode Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 04:31:34 -0500 Message-Id: <1582450294-18038-4-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 In-Reply-To: <1582450294-18038-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> References: <1582450294-18038-1-git-send-email-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: On my server there're some running MEMCGs protected by memory.{min, low}, but I found the usage of these MEMCGs abruptly became very small, which were far less than the protect limit. It confused me and finally I found that was because of inode stealing. Once an inode is freed, all its belonging page caches will be dropped as well, no matter how may page caches it has. So if we intend to protect the page caches in a memcg, we must protect their host (the inode) first. Otherwise the memcg protection can be easily bypassed with freeing inode, especially if there're big files in this memcg. Supposes we have a memcg, and the stat of this memcg is, memory.current = 1024M memory.min = 512M And in this memcg there's a inode with 800M page caches. Once this memcg is scanned by kswapd or other regular reclaimers, kswapd <<<< It can be either of the regular reclaimers. shrink_node_memcgs switch (mem_cgroup_protected()) <<<< Not protected case MEMCG_PROT_NONE: <<<< Will scan this memcg beak; shrink_lruvec() <<<< Reclaim the page caches shrink_slab() <<<< It may free this inode and drop all its page caches(800M). So we must protect the inode first if we want to protect page caches. Note that this inode may be a cold inode (in the tail of list lru), because memcg protection protects all slabs and page cache pages whatever they are cold or hot. IOW, this is a memcg-protection-specific issue. The inherent mismatch between memcg and inode is a trouble. One inode can be shared by different MEMCGs, but it is a very rare case. If an inode is shared, its belonging page caches may be charged to different MEMCGs. Currently there's no perfect solution to fix this kind of issue, but the inode majority-writer ownership switching can help it more or less. Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Johannes Weiner Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao --- fs/inode.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c index 7d57068..6373cd0 100644 --- a/fs/inode.c +++ b/fs/inode.c @@ -55,6 +55,12 @@ * inode_hash_lock */ +struct inode_isolate_control { + struct list_head *freeable; + struct mem_cgroup *memcg; /* derived from shrink_control */ + bool memcg_low_reclaim; /* derived from scan_control */ +}; + static unsigned int i_hash_mask __read_mostly; static unsigned int i_hash_shift __read_mostly; static struct hlist_head *inode_hashtable __read_mostly; @@ -714,6 +720,59 @@ int invalidate_inodes(struct super_block *sb, bool kill_dirty) return busy; } +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM +/* + * Once an inode is freed, all its belonging page caches will be dropped as + * well, even if there're lots of page caches. So if we intend to protect + * page caches in a memcg, we must protect their host(the inode) first. + * Otherwise the memcg protection can be easily bypassed with freeing inode, + * especially if there're big files in this memcg. + * Note that it may happen that the page caches are already charged to the + * memcg, but the inode hasn't been added to this memcg yet. In this case, + * this inode is not protected. + * The inherent mismatch between memcg and inode is a trouble. One inode + * can be shared by different MEMCGs, but it is a very rare case. If + * an inode is shared, its belonging page caches may be charged to + * different MEMCGs. Currently there's no perfect solution to fix this + * kind of issue, but the inode majority-writer ownership switching can + * help it more or less. + */ +static bool memcg_can_reclaim_inode(struct inode *inode, + struct inode_isolate_control *iic) +{ + unsigned long protection; + struct mem_cgroup *memcg; + bool reclaimable = true; + + if (!inode->i_data.nrpages) + goto out; + + /* Excludes freeing inode via drop_caches */ + if (!current->reclaim_state) + goto out; + + memcg = iic->memcg; + if (!memcg || memcg == root_mem_cgroup) + goto out; + + protection = mem_cgroup_protection(memcg, iic->memcg_low_reclaim); + if (!protection) + goto out; + + if (inode->i_data.nrpages) + reclaimable = false; + +out: + return reclaimable; +} +#else /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */ +static bool memcg_can_reclaim_inode(struct inode *inode, + struct inode_isolate_control *iic) +{ + return true; +} +#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */ + /* * Isolate the inode from the LRU in preparation for freeing it. * @@ -732,8 +791,9 @@ int invalidate_inodes(struct super_block *sb, bool kill_dirty) static enum lru_status inode_lru_isolate(struct list_head *item, struct list_lru_one *lru, spinlock_t *lru_lock, void *arg) { - struct list_head *freeable = arg; - struct inode *inode = container_of(item, struct inode, i_lru); + struct inode_isolate_control *iic = arg; + struct list_head *freeable = iic->freeable; + struct inode *inode = container_of(item, struct inode, i_lru); /* * we are inverting the lru lock/inode->i_lock here, so use a trylock. @@ -742,6 +802,11 @@ static enum lru_status inode_lru_isolate(struct list_head *item, if (!spin_trylock(&inode->i_lock)) return LRU_SKIP; + if (!memcg_can_reclaim_inode(inode, iic)) { + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); + return LRU_ROTATE; + } + /* * Referenced or dirty inodes are still in use. Give them another pass * through the LRU as we canot reclaim them now. @@ -799,9 +864,14 @@ long prune_icache_sb(struct super_block *sb, struct shrink_control *sc) { LIST_HEAD(freeable); long freed; + struct inode_isolate_control iic = { + .freeable = &freeable, + .memcg = sc->memcg, + .memcg_low_reclaim = sc->memcg_low_reclaim, + }; freed = list_lru_shrink_walk(&sb->s_inode_lru, sc, - inode_lru_isolate, &freeable); + inode_lru_isolate, &iic); dispose_list(&freeable); return freed; }