@@ -186,6 +186,17 @@ cgroup v2 currently supports the following mount options.
modified through remount from the init namespace. The mount
option is ignored on non-init namespace mounts.
+ memory_recursiveprot
+
+ Recursively apply memory.min and memory.low protection to
+ entire subtrees, without requiring explicit downward
+ propagation into leaf cgroups. This allows protecting entire
+ subtrees from one another, while retaining free competition
+ within those subtrees. This should have been the default
+ behavior but is a mount-option to avoid regressing setups
+ relying on the original semantics (e.g. specifying bogusly
+ high 'bypass' protection values at higher tree levels).
+
Organizing Processes and Threads
--------------------------------
@@ -94,6 +94,11 @@ enum {
* Enable legacy local memory.events.
*/
CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_LOCAL_EVENTS = (1 << 5),
+
+ /*
+ * Enable recursive subtree protection
+ */
+ CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT = (1 << 6),
};
/* cftype->flags */
@@ -1813,12 +1813,14 @@ int cgroup_show_path(struct seq_file *sf, struct kernfs_node *kf_node,
enum cgroup2_param {
Opt_nsdelegate,
Opt_memory_localevents,
+ Opt_memory_recursiveprot,
nr__cgroup2_params
};
static const struct fs_parameter_spec cgroup2_param_specs[] = {
fsparam_flag("nsdelegate", Opt_nsdelegate),
fsparam_flag("memory_localevents", Opt_memory_localevents),
+ fsparam_flag("memory_recursiveprot", Opt_memory_recursiveprot),
{}
};
@@ -1844,6 +1846,9 @@ static int cgroup2_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param
case Opt_memory_localevents:
ctx->flags |= CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_LOCAL_EVENTS;
return 0;
+ case Opt_memory_recursiveprot:
+ ctx->flags |= CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT;
+ return 0;
}
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -1860,6 +1865,11 @@ static void apply_cgroup_root_flags(unsigned int root_flags)
cgrp_dfl_root.flags |= CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_LOCAL_EVENTS;
else
cgrp_dfl_root.flags &= ~CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_LOCAL_EVENTS;
+
+ if (root_flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT)
+ cgrp_dfl_root.flags |= CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT;
+ else
+ cgrp_dfl_root.flags &= ~CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT;
}
}
@@ -1869,6 +1879,8 @@ static int cgroup_show_options(struct seq_file *seq, struct kernfs_root *kf_root
seq_puts(seq, ",nsdelegate");
if (cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_LOCAL_EVENTS)
seq_puts(seq, ",memory_localevents");
+ if (cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT)
+ seq_puts(seq, ",memory_recursiveprot");
return 0;
}
@@ -6364,7 +6376,10 @@ static struct kobj_attribute cgroup_delegate_attr = __ATTR_RO(delegate);
static ssize_t features_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
char *buf)
{
- return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "nsdelegate\nmemory_localevents\n");
+ return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE,
+ "nsdelegate\n"
+ "memory_localevents\n"
+ "memory_recursiveprot\n");
}
static struct kobj_attribute cgroup_features_attr = __ATTR_RO(features);
@@ -6254,6 +6254,32 @@ struct cgroup_subsys memory_cgrp_subsys = {
* budget is NOT proportional. A cgroup's protection from a sibling
* is capped to its own memory.min/low setting.
*
+ * 5. However, to allow protecting recursive subtrees from each other
+ * without having to declare each individual cgroup's fixed share
+ * of the ancestor's claim to protection, any unutilized -
+ * "floating" - protection from up the tree is distributed in
+ * proportion to each cgroup's *usage*. This makes the protection
+ * neutral wrt sibling cgroups and lets them compete freely over
+ * the shared parental protection budget, but it protects the
+ * subtree as a whole from neighboring subtrees.
+ *
+ * Consider the following example tree:
+ *
+ * A A: low = 2G
+ * / \ B: low = 1G
+ * B C C: low = 0G
+ *
+ * As memory pressure is applied, the following memory distribution
+ * is expected (approximately):
+ *
+ * A/memory.current = 2G
+ * B/memory.current = 1.5G
+ * C/memory.current = 0.5G
+ *
+ * Note that 4. and 5. are not in conflict: 4. is about protecting
+ * against immediate siblings whereas 5. is about protecting against
+ * neighboring subtrees.
+ *
* These calculations require constant tracking of the actual low usages
* (see propagate_protected_usage()), as well as recursive calculation of
* effective memory.low values. But as we do call mem_cgroup_protected()
@@ -6263,11 +6289,13 @@ struct cgroup_subsys memory_cgrp_subsys = {
* as memory.low is a best-effort mechanism.
*/
static unsigned long effective_protection(unsigned long usage,
+ unsigned long parent_usage,
unsigned long setting,
unsigned long parent_effective,
unsigned long siblings_protected)
{
unsigned long protected;
+ unsigned long ep;
protected = min(usage, setting);
/*
@@ -6298,7 +6326,31 @@ static unsigned long effective_protection(unsigned long usage,
* protection is always dependent on how memory is actually
* consumed among the siblings anyway.
*/
- return protected;
+ ep = protected;
+
+ if (cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT) {
+ unsigned long unclaimed;
+ /*
+ * If the children aren't claiming (all of) the
+ * protection afforded to them by the parent,
+ * distribute the remainder in proportion to the
+ * (unprotected) size of each cgroup. That way,
+ * cgroups that aren't explicitly prioritized wrt each
+ * other compete freely over the allowance, but they
+ * are collectively protected from neighboring trees.
+ *
+ * We're using unprotected size for the weight so that
+ * if some cgroups DO claim explicit protection, we
+ * don't protect the same bytes twice.
+ */
+ unclaimed = parent_effective - siblings_protected;
+ unclaimed *= usage - protected;
+ unclaimed /= parent_usage - siblings_protected;
+
+ ep += unclaimed;
+ }
+
+ return ep;
}
/**
@@ -6318,9 +6370,9 @@ static unsigned long effective_protection(unsigned long usage,
enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
+ unsigned long usage, parent_usage;
struct mem_cgroup *parent;
unsigned long emin, elow;
- unsigned long usage;
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
@@ -6345,11 +6397,13 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
goto out;
}
- memcg->memory.emin = effective_protection(usage,
+ parent_usage = page_counter_read(&parent->memory);
+
+ memcg->memory.emin = effective_protection(usage, parent_usage,
memcg->memory.min, READ_ONCE(parent->memory.emin),
atomic_long_read(&parent->memory.children_min_usage));
- memcg->memory.elow = effective_protection(usage,
+ memcg->memory.elow = effective_protection(usage, parent_usage,
memcg->memory.low, READ_ONCE(parent->memory.elow),
atomic_long_read(&parent->memory.children_low_usage));
Right now, the effective protection of any given cgroup is capped by its own explicit memory.low setting, regardless of what the parent says. The reasons for this are mostly historical and ease of implementation: to make delegation of memory.low safe, effective protection is the min() of all memory.low up the tree. Unfortunately, this limitation makes it impossible to protect an entire subtree from another without forcing the user to make explicit protection allocations all the way to the leaf cgroups - something that is highly undesirable in real life scenarios. Consider memory in a data center node. At the cgroup top level, we have a distinction between system management software and the actual workload the system is executing. Both branches are further subdivided into individual services, job components etc. We want to protect the workload as a whole from the system management software, but we don't want to protect individual workload components from each other! Their memory demand can vary over time, and we want the VM to simply cache the hottest data within the workload subtree. Yet, the current memory.low limitations force us to hard-allocate protection to each workload cgroup in order to get any protection from system management software. This is basically useless in practice. This patch adds the concept of recursive protection to the memory.low configurable, while retaining the abilty to assign fixed protection in leaf groups as well. That means that if protection is explicitly allocated among siblings, those configured weights are being followed during page reclaim just like they are now. However, if the memory.low set at a higher level is not fully claimed by the children in that subtree, that "floating" protection is applied to each cgroup in the tree in proportion to its size. Since reclaim pressure is applied in proportion to size as well, each child in that tree gets the same boost, and the effect is neutral among siblings - with respect to each other, they behave as if no memory control was enabled at all, and the VM simply balances the memory demands optimally within the subtree. But collectively those cgroups enjoy a boost over the cgroups in neighboring trees. This allows us to recursively protect one subtree (workload) from another (system management), but let subgroups compete freely among each other without having to assign fixed weights to each leaf. This floating protection composes with fixed protection. Consider the following example tree: A A: low = 2G / \ A1: low = 1G A1 A2 A2: low = 0G As outside pressure is applied to this tree, A1 will enjoy a fixed protection from A2 of 1G, but the remaining, unclaimed 1G from A is split evenly among A1 and A2. Assuming equal memory demand in both, memory usage will converge on A1 using 1.5G and A2 using 0.5G. There is a slight risk of regressing theoretical setups where the top-level cgroups don't know about the true budgeting and set bogusly high "bypass" values that are meaningfully allocated down the tree. Such setups would rely on unclaimed protection to be discarded, and distributing it would change the intended behavior. Be safe and hide the new behavior behind a mount option, 'memory_recursiveprot'. Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> --- Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 11 +++++ include/linux/cgroup-defs.h | 5 ++ kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 17 ++++++- mm/memcontrol.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- 4 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)