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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 BA0C1C18E00 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 19:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A85A24682 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 19:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="0/Z2qwVU" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7A85A24682 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 26E7A6B0003; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:31:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 21E836B0006; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:31:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 134056B0007; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:31:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0153.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.153]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4806B0003 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8204A8248047 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 19:31:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76507871202.24.desk32_6602932e8f031 X-HE-Tag: desk32_6602932e8f031 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2544 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf46.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 19:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from X1 (nat-ab2241.sltdut.senawave.net [162.218.216.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F10F6208E4; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 19:31:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1582140700; bh=WFvZa8hDniOG8g1qTenV8AtspoE+3eAninCHZes58LU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0/Z2qwVUjvEBK9lueZh7pxv8imBgjnkMO9MVu2fV58D6nh1RWpn7VHc0zxzfzsbVd k3NwiEWCzkAAatIu4pcPaBY36s/oaD/qjVZML74u8CLJS+JdScIbOuCsQ9x6tv8p70 +pBJ6402V2bEIvxO3B1PeMhVv6eRF3KfABKD6MYk= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:31:39 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Roman Gushchin , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: asynchronous reclaim for memory.high Message-Id: <20200219113139.ee60838bc7eb35747eb330fa@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20200219183731.GC11847@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200219181219.54356-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20200219183731.GC11847@dhcp22.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 19:37:31 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 19-02-20 13:12:19, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > We have received regression reports from users whose workloads moved > > into containers and subsequently encountered new latencies. For some > > users these were a nuisance, but for some it meant missing their SLA > > response times. We tracked those delays down to cgroup limits, which > > inject direct reclaim stalls into the workload where previously all > > reclaim was handled my kswapd. > > I am curious why is this unexpected when the high limit is explicitly > documented as a throttling mechanism. Yes, this sounds like a feature-not-a-bug. But what was the nature of these stalls? If they were "stuck in D state waiting for something" then that's throttling. If they were "unexpected bursts of in-kernel CPU activity" then I see a better case.