From patchwork Sat May 2 13:59:09 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Yafang Shao X-Patchwork-Id: 11523917 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 B9CD41575 for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 13:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7974824953 for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 13:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="PJwvYDyW" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7974824953 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 A13318E0006; Sat, 2 May 2020 09:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 9EA208E0001; Sat, 2 May 2020 09:59:47 -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 8D9E38E0006; Sat, 2 May 2020 09:59:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0070.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DF68E0001 for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 09:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3591140E1 for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 13:59:47 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76771937214.06.hook44_8f9ca836e425a X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,8a74aea36f7f71be,d41d8cd98f00b204,laoar.shao@gmail.com,,RULES_HIT:2:41:355:379:541:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1345:1359:1437:1535:1605:1606:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2897:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4119:4250:4321:4605:5007:6261:6653:7514:7903:7904:9163:9413:10004:11026:11473:11658:11914:12043:12219:12291:12295:12296:12297:12438:12517:12519:12555:12664:12679:12683:12895:13161:13229:13255:14096:14394:14687:21080:21444:21451:21627:21666:21740:21939:21966:21990:30012:30054:30056:30064:30074:30090,0,RBL:209.85.216.68:@gmail.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-66.100.201.100 62.18.0.100,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:24,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: hook44_8f9ca836e425a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 8092 Received: from mail-pj1-f68.google.com (mail-pj1-f68.google.com [209.85.216.68]) by imf41.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 13:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f68.google.com with SMTP id fu13so1267856pjb.5 for ; Sat, 02 May 2020 06:59:46 -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=caKjrX3mTcTL/HDQZh9r3jby6eePBgvigX1m8H2FqMM=; b=PJwvYDyWmjLiD+opA/iBX4wubGJhRitB58y81nezrrNMsgjVGaRf0J9qJaW2M9+gFO 0+rOGTfncF4XnZJRUYD0ghz+Vcb9/cPNlzfh8bmmmsjOXxkKMWsZA0ViwqBSODbudPFR 350kx4N28wPyr4GvSLkJsnsMU9H2qEEURjYoucYThEaUD/Far0+ZBh6HRZjDs9nBmMKg psCARF95htu373na2YZP9lhh/E2KY2lMXRc/eI3I/HyTonETRtc2iLOSZxS+PWg565AB J+6KByaisPncFT82ZrAhWg7X+X0Dz0QbL+Myv78b/FQXIwHMBzS1y/8mA2r0PdzD7z5P a9MA== 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=caKjrX3mTcTL/HDQZh9r3jby6eePBgvigX1m8H2FqMM=; b=o16RKivgBzThfNPKUByI4dVl0bUbVWsuLy+TBkMzDcdNNv6XZ8XF3bjbJwTzmCVhiA ePzs0s4Bn1h990MTn+rkjK0TpkwpKmjarU3NGTGI/FKUJ7B/w1Y9NIzpXPD9Yel7DCJo 0IQ0iu/RYvtlPHZqOGT9/UUVmgOSEvyT+73+zLcTJkcULsrt9RxSGryDvW5VSRH/5E37 Yug85w+aRtcXKZcOax+nMu2tSx6+lLPGnafP8TT0K+drVrOvXS2MMjQ7+g2J6lB5GX6u WOBWUVeXFmsg0+NKTL9LitddJBQeHkbga1wKofn12MLvQhztAL7F5OgJqKYQkmcv3vPu tZOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubW6rQ2biQsFe3zZ2o4YPSAq+uDq7zU5U/qpmVATkMSMkduBUbl kWsSal4Q2LTLssyA+CgPxPM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLcvy71ZPYf/vQvh6nnnTSNaj1XveXfT4i+EVrOXHkd69BF3phI+Vum5pDRX5D92EbZ0wemrA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a405:: with SMTP id p5mr9667988plq.36.1588427985783; Sat, 02 May 2020 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([203.100.54.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i11sm4145708pgi.1.2020.05.02.06.59.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 02 May 2020 06:59:45 -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, Yafang Shao Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm, memcg: Avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 09:59:09 -0400 Message-Id: <20200502135910.7255-2-laoar.shao@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.18.1 In-Reply-To: <20200502135910.7255-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> References: <20200502135910.7255-1-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. [hannes@cmpxchg.org: changelog] [mhocko@kernel.org: rework code comment] [chris@chrisdown.name: retitle] Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Chris Down Acked-by: Chris Down Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Michal Hocko --- 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) {