From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] memcg: schedule high reclaim for remote memcgs on high_work
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:59:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190111205948.GA4591@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190110174432.82064-1-shakeelb@google.com>
Hi Shakeel,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:44:32AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> If a memcg is over high limit, memory reclaim is scheduled to run on
> return-to-userland. However it is assumed that the memcg is the current
> process's memcg. With remote memcg charging for kmem or swapping in a
> page charged to remote memcg, current process can trigger reclaim on
> remote memcg. So, schduling reclaim on return-to-userland for remote
> memcgs will ignore the high reclaim altogether. So, record the memcg
> needing high reclaim and trigger high reclaim for that memcg on
> return-to-userland. However if the memcg is already recorded for high
> reclaim and the recorded memcg is not the descendant of the the memcg
> needing high reclaim, punt the high reclaim to the work queue.
The idea behind remote charging is that the thread allocating the
memory is not responsible for that memory, but a different cgroup
is. Why would the same thread then have to work off any high excess
this could produce in that unrelated group?
Say you have a inotify/dnotify listener that is restricted in its
memory use - now everybody sending notification events from outside
that listener's group would get throttled on a cgroup over which it
has no control. That sounds like a recipe for priority inversions.
It seems to me we should only do reclaim-on-return when current is in
the ill-behaved cgroup, and punt everything else - interrupts and
remote charges - to the workqueue.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-11 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-10 17:44 Shakeel Butt
2019-01-10 17:44 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-11 20:59 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2019-01-11 22:54 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-11 22:54 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-13 18:34 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-14 20:18 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-14 20:18 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-15 7:25 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-15 19:38 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-15 19:38 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-16 7:02 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190111205948.GA4591@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox