From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B622C433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC417207D4 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:14:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1590747259; bh=Tvhq8xITRGxjzi6fXrOcinuz06PurwEz52edCWgNF9I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=KXyNSABFfZMo+Pt+dfzybc02GbMEXLdXm9+/aPa3XdYGOqnt5RWMaUoRHt/Fu9Qzz wqdZ3Z7Cn1ROCmerbMXam5ydazLsa0FMwUR/+6Ww6EFUvQ0KO++DGjraGr61zXQDiT ZEPC0HJvKZomoAxtX3kIrRkqffqppKtpKlS3UU6I= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726649AbgE2KOS (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 06:14:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:47039 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725601AbgE2KOQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 06:14:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id x6so2804037wrm.13; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:14:14 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=fjFkfyPnmnUfjK5e2Sor0/7zNo8bV0z4i3upTl22etI=; b=SCKcij5o2xoAksurGFnAQCjmwbAATxb99+6DRffbNwxZ0wHQdPIB5gfZif40rqUvYj dily348aNOOiEsvxh5zPqyM3bVvL6XwsnKpJcUlOf6xnApip3J3S009VTOggnEYNUHU4 J0iky8L7NEuIpFHHqneP8xUzC55xM5VC1PlP2a3yYqlVdEdZz2vRO9agqxLEXCI2kNLD u8GX1o1UcDzQRwitBn/GfsPnbOl2BPDMe5XI1P7+U4scCY9LPrRFvjzOTIIDn9X33Dq+ 1uSO6tK0NpbAGtA6rBeI3F/+AM4t8Y9kvIVlDo3we3kg7IMK/4nygpAYP75wdxZihk0b jubQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vBN/eo44+u4WjSJRhEKVjR7QJzdxfjmUHKRRfsTyaXOJB7VPA 6i5S5gtN2OYA0TkV1ZheHH8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzn6aLmwokj6tmIfnCNGo7vbtKiJNtoOPTx7wRTRPgg9TfVmfq8xS6pGLVOfpzsROcTGZanFw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5492:: with SMTP id h18mr7777167wrv.330.1590747254204; Fri, 29 May 2020 03:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-178-109.eurotel.cz. [37.188.178.109]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y17sm5355217wrn.12.2020.05.29.03.14.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 29 May 2020 03:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 12:14:12 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Chris Down Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high allocator throttling Message-ID: <20200529101412.GJ4406@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200521073245.GI6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521135152.GA810429@cmpxchg.org> <20200521143515.GU6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163833.GA813446@cmpxchg.org> <20200521173701.GX6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521184505.GA815980@cmpxchg.org> <20200528163101.GJ27484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528164848.GB839178@chrisdown.name> <20200529073118.GE4406@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200529100858.GA98458@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200529100858.GA98458@chrisdown.name> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 29-05-20 11:08:58, Chris Down wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > > task->memcg_nr_pages_over_high is not vague, it's a best-effort > > > > > mechanism to distribute fairness. It's the current task's share of the > > > > > cgroup's overage, and it allows us in the majority of situations to > > > > > distribute reclaim work and sleeps in proportion to how much the task > > > > > is actually at fault. > > > > > > > > Agreed. But this stops being the case as soon as the reclaim target has > > > > been reached and new reclaim attempts are enforced because the memcg is > > > > still above the high limit. Because then you have a completely different > > > > reclaim target - get down to the limit. This would be especially visible > > > > with a large memcg_nr_pages_over_high which could even lead to an over > > > > reclaim. > > > > > > We actually over reclaim even before this patch -- this patch doesn't bring > > > much new in that regard. > > > > > > Tracing try_to_free_pages for a cgroup at the memory.high threshold shows > > > that before this change, we sometimes even reclaim on the order of twice the > > > number of pages requested. For example, I see cases where we requested 1000 > > > pages to be reclaimed, but end up reclaiming 2000 in a single reclaim > > > attempt. > > > > This is interesting and worth looking into. I am aware that we can > > reclaim potentially much more pages during the icache reclaim and that > > there was a heated discussion without any fix merged in the end IIRC. > > Do you have any details? > > Sure, we can look into this more, but let's do it separately from this patch > -- I don't see that its merging should be contingent on that discussion :-) Yes that is a separate issue. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs