From patchwork Mon Apr 7 01:41:58 2025 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Waiman Long X-Patchwork-Id: 14039635 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42136C3600C for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 01:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 5D0286B0008; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 21:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 57F896B0010; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 21:42:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 421616B0011; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 21:42:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226676B0008 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2025 21:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86B8C08D1 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 01:42:19 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83305547598.16.B02DB95 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131441A0006 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 01:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Oa0NHKvE; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of longman@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=longman@redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1743990138; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=L786tJBb4g/VUThOOO0WmZzQBkK4KkOjcLrm5qiQbdo=; b=YoNv4AY81pE9jJmf+facpu7ImvipdyKeRTpV3ULWf2rmB2uZ8lO55cq9/MACg9d+uM0gwx 9ZSMsr9JUrfy54hRTzg/r6URc04P+8miHMwMSOraPDeZoGiRLUALjVlABScwuETWLk0r7+ R9gchOJgc/tsERJgCNwtcPbZh/VSDK8= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1743990138; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=orYKPJDXZPLrvZ3u9IfiFxW3zkLrDq+1Wj48YheOy8DAK/NV4pwNqfDUMV2YzRVTuxsXGV V+jn1ZU3JW6wcCrSVfrZej8374DYujbp1hYL1YKhzjZmQyZpZVAiPmVlPnLdoz/kOyKEUF Ecp4oIOx1ewg2ywONYGHdOvkDWIaJ04= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Oa0NHKvE; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of longman@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=longman@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1743990137; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=L786tJBb4g/VUThOOO0WmZzQBkK4KkOjcLrm5qiQbdo=; b=Oa0NHKvEUS7DWruTy7+MwJKPvJCVxDX2MwBDe8H6hbDG0WjDkmkTLag70mB+a+YiXKUUM7 6YZUJ8PerWDEzc0qfU1nQAw0n5CKGBKldWByyfgaL+4pXnjGpdGdtLL4L/tl4vJhGpsYpQ AnpW/Rju2fn+Q3/2Z06I4N8PS7rAQtw= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-310-8GMhVFGLP-uksPJ5HSPxUg-1; Sun, 06 Apr 2025 21:42:14 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 8GMhVFGLP-uksPJ5HSPxUg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 8GMhVFGLP-uksPJ5HSPxUg_1743990132 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B94818001DE; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 01:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from llong-thinkpadp16vgen1.westford.csb (unknown [10.22.64.92]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255181809B71; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 01:42:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Waiman Long To: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , =?utf-8?q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= , Shuah Khan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Waiman Long Subject: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm/vmscan: Skip memcg with !usage in shrink_node_memcgs() Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 21:41:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20250407014159.1291785-2-longman@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20250407014159.1291785-1-longman@redhat.com> References: <20250407014159.1291785-1-longman@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 131441A0006 X-Stat-Signature: mawf5168chrkwf5zrz18ccmyq1g9rf98 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1743990137-999595 X-HE-Meta: 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 2zzIKwdK JWLs8a63e9Jc5sVXU2xOlGDvdgfxVxyPLyh5zIwu9qqI/8EpDciZeWOA42FKbT2ErN9+9gvcE1H+1o1KBk1/jJUnmnhmlTh9x2GQxPeQQCJTmg4m6bvBAQIBOONwn/6LgM26Qhsr4CuSSpy2Bni7TxHV2x3Glu4XyLoiRFcsH2RWa8Nbuv2o+kC83Cygwr5440Uq1/veg0y3oZOAqYRhIZhDAu07a6Elyy3OlSWHYa134tFLXQjrCJYJXdUZkzFe5QQeZXd0VZBJptJhAqGG17+8dL7OOms0G8eei0Uv+6aYm8l5MkC33kGTrQWTUeI7XtiXx1WoCf+DpFmSstFw9OWU/LeLmPDM/QdB7TASykkc8Q9YZIaAHY7d4j/lIpKBv4ErwE6wBomjKYrvbgbvc/BLmlyJc/zfeXz7e21o9sx4suFHECIKpna5UgJOj4d72S/G0uDfbHZEuk4m9sLfU6HVdRUWawFOb09xX 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: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: The test_memcontrol selftest consistently fails its test_memcg_low sub-test due to the fact that two of its test child cgroups which have a memmory.low of 0 or an effective memory.low of 0 still have low events generated for them since mem_cgroup_below_low() use the ">=" operator when comparing to elow. The two failed use cases are as follows: 1) memory.low is set to 0, but low events can still be triggered and so the cgroup may have a non-zero low event count. I doubt users are looking for that as they didn't set memory.low at all. 2) memory.low is set to a non-zero value but the cgroup has no task in it so that it has an effective low value of 0. Again it may have a non-zero low event count if memory reclaim happens. This is probably not a result expected by the users and it is really doubtful that users will check an empty cgroup with no task in it and expecting some non-zero event counts. In the first case, even though memory.low isn't set, it may still have some low protection if memory.low is set in the parent. So low event may still be recorded. The test_memcontrol.c test has to be modified to account for that. For the second case, it really doesn't make sense to have non-zero low event if the cgroup has 0 usage. So we need to skip this corner case in shrink_node_memcgs() by skipping the !usage case. The "#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG" directive is added to avoid problem with the non-CONFIG_MEMCG case. With this patch applied, the test_memcg_low sub-test finishes successfully without failure in most cases. Though both test_memcg_low and test_memcg_min sub-tests may still fail occasionally if the memory.current values fall outside of the expected ranges. Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner Signed-off-by: Waiman Long --- mm/vmscan.c | 10 ++++++++++ tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 7 ++++++- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index b620d74b0f66..65dee0ad6627 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -5926,6 +5926,7 @@ static inline bool should_continue_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, return inactive_lru_pages > pages_for_compaction; } +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) { struct mem_cgroup *target_memcg = sc->target_mem_cgroup; @@ -5963,6 +5964,10 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg); + /* Skip memcg with no usage */ + if (!page_counter_read(&memcg->memory)) + continue; + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(target_memcg, memcg)) { /* * Hard protection. @@ -6004,6 +6009,11 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) } } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, memcg, partial))); } +#else +static inline void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) +{ +} +#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG */ static void shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) { diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index 16f5d74ae762..bab826b6b7b0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -525,8 +525,13 @@ static int test_memcg_protection(const char *root, bool min) goto cleanup; } + /* + * Child 2 has memory.low=0, but some low protection is still being + * distributed down from its parent with memory.low=50M. So the low + * event count will be non-zero. + */ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) { - int no_low_events_index = 1; + int no_low_events_index = 2; long low, oom; oom = cg_read_key_long(children[i], "memory.events", "oom ");