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=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 6EB0BC34021 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:35:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D83207FD for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:35:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 26D83207FD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C31226B0005; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BE3246B0006; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:35:32 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id AD1CE6B0007; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:35:32 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0216.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.216]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DBA6B0005 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186E9181AEF0B for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:35:32 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76499867304.12.farm88_1324d2c6e0d49 X-HE-Tag: farm88_1324d2c6e0d49 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6858 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com (mail-wr1-f68.google.com [209.85.221.68]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id t3so20000845wru.7 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:35:31 -0800 (PST) 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=que8SM0NllboTAI7x/q13P+CYwg4PjTjh0bs3s6TTFI=; b=nSGuQTYZjH6fbCB+b7XeDRE5v9X57T0l4fbapyWVPd2QK2mHeNyyiYnUb37QGCHZ7H R5GSdKPnlcyIRkLNyP43NCYmaDu5JmKDjks5vwVhZAOQUcPAl9ubILtHkvPSBITvb8uz ZTS4L2zMn9aAUFis7bMZxsLXd1hWJVb6myXQi4P9KZVLKETawQuJkaCAHLWJPQbC2te9 Ifq/mnC3hxUFHTvV9U5CY75KYWjxmB9ccDiYMqKmTFKMLQflIDn6vWgU6DP/6saNACQv q3pmXp7LqLmN+DAQ2/KSt/pROeSl0i2bdMkHVRfAQXyU1sDR8jDVKdpEim6dp99LWBub K0VA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUqp5/5iLybX5XirXkvXI2ZGBBH7otLBe5enKGBk0xCC741fSnV 2A95lcuKAR8QVTvQmWfAr6U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyoTTn1wCisAHHVzI8Ym1cLZ5D5mbNbKUctxBaEBa6ihIeY1HXPIApcX3ieL97M6n3YmXdvfA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f504:: with SMTP id q4mr21513381wro.28.1581950130428; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:35:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t13sm1287290wrw.19.2020.02.17.06.35.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 06:35:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:35:29 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Yafang Shao Cc: Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Chris Down , Linux MM , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm, memcg: reset memcg's memory.{min, low} for reclaiming itself Message-ID: <20200217143529.GQ31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200216145249.6900-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20200217092459.GG31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217132443.GM31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217140430.GO31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000003, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > kswapd > > > | > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > | > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > | > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > | > > > exit > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > memcg relcaimer > > > | > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > for memcg-A. > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > | > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > value is no longer valid? > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > statement (if (memcg == root)). Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs