* [PATCH v2 1/2] mm, memcg: Avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection
2020-05-02 13:59 [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: memcontrol: memory.{low,min} reclaim fix & cleanup Yafang Shao
@ 2020-05-02 13:59 ` Yafang Shao
2020-05-02 14:12 ` Chris Down
` (2 more replies)
2020-05-02 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm, memcg: Decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks Yafang Shao
1 sibling, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yafang Shao @ 2020-05-02 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: mhocko, hannes, chris, guro, linux-mm, Yafang Shao
A cgroup can have both memory protection and a memory limit to isolate
it from its siblings in both directions - for example, to prevent it
from being shrunk below 2G under high pressure from outside, but also
from growing beyond 4G under low pressure.
Commit 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim")
implemented proportional scan pressure so that multiple siblings in
excess of their protection settings don't get reclaimed equally but
instead in accordance to their unprotected portion.
During limit reclaim, this proportionality shouldn't apply of course:
there is no competition, all pressure is from within the cgroup and
should be applied as such. Reclaim should operate at full efficiency.
However, mem_cgroup_protected() never expected anybody to look at the
effective protection values when it indicated that the cgroup is above
its protection. As a result, a query during limit reclaim may return
stale protection values that were calculated by a previous reclaim cycle
in which the cgroup did have siblings.
When this happens, reclaim is unnecessarily hesitant and potentially
slow to meet the desired limit. In theory this could lead to premature
OOM kills, although it's not obvious this has occurred in practice.
[hannes@cmpxchg.org: changelog]
[mhocko@kernel.org: rework code comment]
[chris@chrisdown.name: retitle]
Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim")
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++++++
mm/vmscan.c | 3 ++-
3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index d275c72c4f8e..c07548ce26cb 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -344,12 +344,49 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(void)
return !cgroup_subsys_enabled(memory_cgrp_subsys);
}
-static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
+static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
bool in_low_reclaim)
{
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return 0;
+ /*
+ * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim.
+ * We are special casing this specific case here because
+ * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep
+ * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for
+ * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
+ * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU)
+ * which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim
+ * but a different value for external reclaim.
+ *
+ * Example
+ * Let's have global and A's reclaim in parallel:
+ * |
+ * A (low=2G, usage = 3G, max = 3G, children_low_usage = 1.5G)
+ * |\
+ * | C (low = 1G, usage = 2.5G)
+ * B (low = 1G, usage = 0.5G)
+ *
+ * For the global reclaim
+ * A.elow = A.low
+ * B.elow = min(B.usage, B.low) because children_low_usage <= A.elow
+ * C.elow = min(C.usage, C.low)
+ *
+ * With the effective values resetting we have A reclaim
+ * A.elow = 0
+ * B.elow = B.low
+ * C.elow = C.low
+ *
+ * If the global reclaim races with A's reclaim then
+ * B.elow = C.elow = 0 because children_low_usage > A.elow)
+ * is possible and reclaiming B would be violating the protection.
+ *
+ */
+ if (root == memcg)
+ return 0;
+
if (in_low_reclaim)
return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin);
@@ -835,7 +872,8 @@ static inline void memcg_memory_event_mm(struct mm_struct *mm,
{
}
-static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
+static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
bool in_low_reclaim)
{
return 0;
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 5beea03dd58a..1206682edc1a 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -6388,6 +6388,14 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
if (!root)
root = root_mem_cgroup;
+
+ /*
+ * Effective values of the reclaim targets are ignored so they
+ * can be stale. Have a look at mem_cgroup_protection for more
+ * details.
+ * TODO: calculation should be more robust so that we do not need
+ * that special casing.
+ */
if (memcg == root)
return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index b06868fc4926..4d3027ac131c 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2346,7 +2346,8 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
unsigned long protection;
lruvec_size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
- protection = mem_cgroup_protection(memcg,
+ protection = mem_cgroup_protection(sc->target_mem_cgroup,
+ memcg,
sc->memcg_low_reclaim);
if (protection) {
--
2.18.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [PATCH v2 2/2] mm, memcg: Decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks
2020-05-02 13:59 [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: memcontrol: memory.{low,min} reclaim fix & cleanup Yafang Shao
2020-05-02 13:59 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm, memcg: Avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection Yafang Shao
@ 2020-05-02 13:59 ` Yafang Shao
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yafang Shao @ 2020-05-02 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: mhocko, hannes, chris, guro, linux-mm, Yafang Shao
From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
mem_cgroup_protected currently is both used to set effective low and min
and return a mem_cgroup_protection based on the result. As a user, this
can be a little unexpected: it appears to be a simple predicate function,
if not for the big warning in the comment above about the order in which
it must be executed.
This change makes it so that we separate the state mutations from the
actual protection checks, which makes it more obvious where we need to be
careful mutating internal state, and where we are simply checking and
don't need to worry about that.
Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
mm/memcontrol.c | 28 +++++++------------------
mm/vmscan.c | 17 ++++-----------
3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index c07548ce26cb..7a2c56fc220c 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -50,12 +50,6 @@ enum memcg_memory_event {
MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS,
};
-enum mem_cgroup_protection {
- MEMCG_PROT_NONE,
- MEMCG_PROT_LOW,
- MEMCG_PROT_MIN,
-};
-
struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie {
pg_data_t *pgdat;
unsigned int generation;
@@ -394,8 +388,26 @@ static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow));
}
-enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
- struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
+void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
+
+static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
+ return false;
+
+ return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow) >=
+ page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
+}
+
+static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
+ return false;
+
+ return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin) >=
+ page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
+}
int mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm,
gfp_t gfp_mask, struct mem_cgroup **memcgp,
@@ -879,10 +891,19 @@ static inline unsigned long mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
return 0;
}
-static inline enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(
- struct mem_cgroup *root, struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+static inline void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+}
+
+static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
- return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
+ return false;
+}
+
+static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ return false;
}
static inline int mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm,
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 1206682edc1a..474815acaf93 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -6370,21 +6370,15 @@ static unsigned long effective_protection(unsigned long usage,
*
* WARNING: This function is not stateless! It can only be used as part
* of a top-down tree iteration, not for isolated queries.
- *
- * Returns one of the following:
- * MEMCG_PROT_NONE: cgroup memory is not protected
- * MEMCG_PROT_LOW: cgroup memory is protected as long there is
- * an unprotected supply of reclaimable memory from other cgroups.
- * MEMCG_PROT_MIN: cgroup memory is protected
*/
-enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
- struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
unsigned long usage, parent_usage;
struct mem_cgroup *parent;
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
- return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
+ return;
if (!root)
root = root_mem_cgroup;
@@ -6397,21 +6391,21 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
* that special casing.
*/
if (memcg == root)
- return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
+ return;
usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
if (!usage)
- return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
+ return;
parent = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg);
/* No parent means a non-hierarchical mode on v1 memcg */
if (!parent)
- return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
+ return;
if (parent == root) {
memcg->memory.emin = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.min);
memcg->memory.elow = memcg->memory.low;
- goto out;
+ return;
}
parent_usage = page_counter_read(&parent->memory);
@@ -6424,14 +6418,6 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
WRITE_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow, effective_protection(usage, parent_usage,
memcg->memory.low, READ_ONCE(parent->memory.elow),
atomic_long_read(&parent->memory.children_low_usage)));
-
-out:
- if (usage <= memcg->memory.emin)
- return MEMCG_PROT_MIN;
- else if (usage <= memcg->memory.elow)
- return MEMCG_PROT_LOW;
- else
- return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
}
/**
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 4d3027ac131c..c71660e2c304 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2635,14 +2635,15 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
unsigned long reclaimed;
unsigned long scanned;
- switch (mem_cgroup_protected(target_memcg, memcg)) {
- case MEMCG_PROT_MIN:
+ mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg);
+
+ if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) {
/*
* Hard protection.
* If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM.
*/
continue;
- case MEMCG_PROT_LOW:
+ } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg)) {
/*
* Soft protection.
* Respect the protection only as long as
@@ -2654,16 +2655,6 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
continue;
}
memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW);
- break;
- case MEMCG_PROT_NONE:
- /*
- * All protection thresholds breached. We may
- * still choose to vary the scan pressure
- * applied based on by how much the cgroup in
- * question has exceeded its protection
- * thresholds (see get_scan_count).
- */
- break;
}
reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
--
2.18.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread