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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 E2D77C43331 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACC12067B for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="EMVmKgMO" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1ACC12067B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AA4496B0003; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A2E7E6B0005; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:59:36 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8D01B6B0006; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:59:36 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0152.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.152]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A476B0003 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 25D3E2C34 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:59:36 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76148539152.12.box65_1987d6f160958 X-HE-Tag: box65_1987d6f160958 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7850 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com (mail-qt1-f196.google.com [209.85.160.196]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:59:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id r20so6874287qtp.13 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:59:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rgM2RqPXYR8XftL0OfTNCKtOSvPTaPc3Qs+/MwLyKws=; b=EMVmKgMOijGUWYnZaGwe/jC5F/aCHtRoZZnz1AYNLZPZ5is52D8BzY2tBIPf4qbXye OC/fvVUmtW5M53sG3SKvUBxi1wDHx/UD/PJZoQeNcRfGeQSr6/hCNC8umWQSQbOYgOSH +y3XFgsIHndECqoG+0aYeEvtxMLuVQDz8mF/T/IS8WbFzXjF/eIs6xT8EEjY1cFiPb/s qJ2uQ4OkLu2FvwMYcWqACPZN5DTLv+wrEYEUQg4uTqEK4kzrRmxv8yeItyFF2Xgya+hE txrlJQp+Xxo+ywp5wpVqtP68zKUzak5UV8LpKGdoAI/ZRS74vlBcto7cJ8XyGBPUWXzo HxcQ== 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:user-agent; bh=rgM2RqPXYR8XftL0OfTNCKtOSvPTaPc3Qs+/MwLyKws=; b=bBpiKGj6LBEjEW7+y0BrRCpXj7hdMSLvxEpRAi1x1y+4RPEdMvo36sC4Tr1VDJ/qeE Lise3Q8dNx+IKETZC0BQWYng5WnG+lxF+eIYHDtfQK5P6F3xj2+bdrJw2mL8s1E/fh4C ATtBwuz+J8PYNqGOjVQQJ+RG84nbpWd8YMIa+rAAgwqGMFXqB9F/gkfub4YYY2b3NYd0 w69Ib2x0Q940YR0vzN4yX5lLWGAY8wfjJa/1PE0IV8NjmrrUc45BfiUgrYiJ8E5j32VV SdaK9seX6lXg8mnTGUoyMJBog9zCLLnB03zns6Gotnia+csF+gUxUE7iXQCqBaDK8ZgC larA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV3925cgqXXwoI0H2vlY2YBK5ZIB1bzW6Kkpm1ye5gu0luAzAAb D0wF8vApEQpekFHkcXMhcxxUTQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwD0WdgVIwZ/cfBMu1PUqWehtvN1HsQezESoNHDCEPoKT8miFJkz13qTng9rBXlrzCoi8hBSw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4610:: with SMTP id p16mr32139211qtn.84.1573585174192; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:59:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:500::aa8c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i186sm9683510qkc.8.2019.11.12.10.59.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:59:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:59:32 -0500 From: Johannes Weiner To: Suren Baghdasaryan Cc: Andrew Morton , Andrey Ryabinin , Shakeel Butt , Rik van Riel , Michal Hocko , linux-mm , cgroups mailinglist , LKML , kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: vmscan: detect file thrashing at the reclaim root Message-ID: <20191112185932.GC179587@cmpxchg.org> References: <20191107205334.158354-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20191107205334.158354-3-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20191112174533.GA178331@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) 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: On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:45:44AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:45 AM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 06:01:18PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > > > We use refault information to determine whether the cache workingset > > > > is stable or transitioning, and dynamically adjust the inactive:active > > > > file LRU ratio so as to maximize protection from one-off cache during > > > > stable periods, and minimize IO during transitions. > > > > > > > > With cgroups and their nested LRU lists, we currently don't do this > > > > correctly. While recursive cgroup reclaim establishes a relative LRU > > > > order among the pages of all involved cgroups, refaults only affect > > > > the local LRU order in the cgroup in which they are occuring. As a > > > > result, cache transitions can take longer in a cgrouped system as the > > > > active pages of sibling cgroups aren't challenged when they should be. > > > > > > > > [ Right now, this is somewhat theoretical, because the siblings, under > > > > continued regular reclaim pressure, should eventually run out of > > > > inactive pages - and since inactive:active *size* balancing is also > > > > done on a cgroup-local level, we will challenge the active pages > > > > eventually in most cases. But the next patch will move that relative > > > > size enforcement to the reclaim root as well, and then this patch > > > > here will be necessary to propagate refault pressure to siblings. ] > > > > > > > > This patch moves refault detection to the root of reclaim. Instead of > > > > remembering the cgroup owner of an evicted page, remember the cgroup > > > > that caused the reclaim to happen. When refaults later occur, they'll > > > > correctly influence the cross-cgroup LRU order that reclaim follows. > > > > > > I spent some time thinking about the idea of calculating refault > > > distance using target_memcg's inactive_age and then activating > > > refaulted page in (possibly) another memcg and I am still having > > > trouble convincing myself that this should work correctly. However I > > > also was unable to convince myself otherwise... We use refault > > > distance to calculate the deficit in inactive LRU space and then > > > activate the refaulted page if that distance is less that > > > active+inactive LRU size. However making that decision based on LRU > > > sizes of one memcg and then activating the page in another one seems > > > very counterintuitive to me. Maybe that's just me though... > > > > It's not activating in a random, unrelated memcg - it's the parental > > relationship that makes it work. > > > > If you have a cgroup tree > > > > root > > | > > A > > / \ > > B1 B2 > > > > and reclaim is driven by a limit in A, we are reclaiming the pages in > > B1 and B2 as if they were on a single LRU list A (it's approximated by > > the round-robin reclaim and has some caveats, but that's the idea). > > > > So when a page that belongs to B2 gets evicted, it gets evicted from > > virtual LRU list A. When it refaults later, we make the (in)active > > size and distance comparisons against virtual LRU list A as well. > > > > The pages on the physical LRU list B2 are not just ordered relative to > > its B2 peers, they are also ordered relative to the pages in B1. And > > that of course is necessary if we want fair competition between them > > under shared reclaim pressure from A. > > Thanks for clarification. The testcase in your description when group > B has a large inactive cache which does not get reclaimed while its > sibling group A has to drop its active cache got me under the > impression that sibling cgroups (in your reply above B1 and B2) can > cause memory pressure in each other. Maybe that's not a legit case and > B1 would not cause pressure in B2 without causing pressure in their > shared parent A? It now makes more sense to me and I want to confirm > that is the case. Yes. I'm sorry if this was misleading. They should only cause pressure onto each other by causing pressure on A; and then reclaim in A treats them as one combined pool of pages.