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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham 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 B852DC04AB6 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 02:34:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B58E21721 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 02:34:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726326AbfE2Ce3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 22:34:29 -0400 Received: from out30-56.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.56]:37206 "EHLO out30-56.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725816AbfE2Ce3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 22:34:29 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R381e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04420;MF=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=10;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0TSvOYQ4_1559097264; Received: from US-143344MP.local(mailfrom:yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0TSvOYQ4_1559097264) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Wed, 29 May 2019 10:34:25 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Make deferred split shrinker memcg aware To: David Rientjes Cc: ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, hughd@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1559047464-59838-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> From: Yang Shi Message-ID: <2e23bd8c-6120-5a86-9e9e-ab43b02ce150@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 10:34:24 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/29/19 9:22 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2019, Yang Shi wrote: > >> I got some reports from our internal application team about memcg OOM. >> Even though the application has been killed by oom killer, there are >> still a lot THPs reside, page reclaim doesn't reclaim them at all. >> >> Some investigation shows they are on deferred split queue, memcg direct >> reclaim can't shrink them since THP deferred split shrinker is not memcg >> aware, this may cause premature OOM in memcg. The issue can be >> reproduced easily by the below test: >> > Right, we've also encountered this. I talked to Kirill about it a week or > so ago where the suggestion was to split all compound pages on the > deferred split queues under the presence of even memory pressure. > > That breaks cgroup isolation and perhaps unfairly penalizes workloads that > are running attached to other memcg hierarchies that are not under > pressure because their compound pages are now split as a side effect. > There is a benefit to keeping these compound pages around while not under > memory pressure if all pages are subsequently mapped again. Yes, I do agree. I tried other approaches too, it sounds making deferred split queue per memcg is the optimal one. > >> $ cgcreate -g memory:thp >> $ echo 4G > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/thp/memory/limit_in_bytes >> $ cgexec -g memory:thp ./transhuge-stress 4000 >> >> transhuge-stress comes from kernel selftest. >> >> It is easy to hit OOM, but there are still a lot THP on the deferred split >> queue, memcg direct reclaim can't touch them since the deferred split >> shrinker is not memcg aware. >> > Yes, we have seen this on at least 4.15 as well. > >> Convert deferred split shrinker memcg aware by introducing per memcg deferred >> split queue. The THP should be on either per node or per memcg deferred >> split queue if it belongs to a memcg. When the page is immigrated to the >> other memcg, it will be immigrated to the target memcg's deferred split queue >> too. >> >> And, move deleting THP from deferred split queue in page free before memcg >> uncharge so that the page's memcg information is available. >> >> Reuse the second tail page's deferred_list for per memcg list since the same >> THP can't be on multiple deferred split queues at the same time. >> >> Remove THP specific destructor since it is not used anymore with memcg aware >> THP shrinker (Please see the commit log of patch 2/3 for the details). >> >> Make deferred split shrinker not depend on memcg kmem since it is not slab. >> It doesn't make sense to not shrink THP even though memcg kmem is disabled. >> >> With the above change the test demonstrated above doesn't trigger OOM anymore >> even though with cgroup.memory=nokmem. >> > I'm curious if your internal applications team is also asking for > statistics on how much memory can be freed if the deferred split queues > can be shrunk? We have applications that monitor their own memory usage No, but this reminds me. The THPs on deferred split queue should be accounted into available memory too. > through memcg stats or usage and proactively try to reduce that usage when > it is growing too large. The deferred split queues have significantly > increased both memcg usage and rss when they've upgraded kernels. > > How are your applications monitoring how much memory from deferred split > queues can be freed on memory pressure? Any thoughts on providing it as a > memcg stat? I don't think they have such monitor. I saw rss_huge is abormal in memcg stat even after the application is killed by oom, so I realized the deferred split queue may play a role here. The memcg stat doesn't have counters for available memory as global vmstat. It may be better to have such statistics, or extending reclaimable "slab" to shrinkable/reclaimable "memory". > > Thanks!