From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: skip current when memcg reclaim
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:45:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGWkznHF8Q8VEiKmDHNXW7Lf2=37=YXC+oP0COxe7WhY4bPWiQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YW/Zf/s/CtRFlJ87@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:55 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 20-10-21 15:33:39, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> [...]
> > Do you mean that direct reclaim should succeed for the first round
> > reclaim within which memcg get protected by memory.low and would NOT
> > retry by setting memcg_low_reclaim to true?
>
> Yes, this is the semantic of low limit protection in the upstream
> kernel. Have a look at do_try_to_free_pages and how it sets
> memcg_low_reclaim only if there were no pages reclaimed.
>
> > It is not true in android
> > like system, where reclaim always failed and introduce lmk and even
> > OOM.
>
> I am not familiar with android specific changes to the upstream reclaim
> logic. You should be investigating why the reclaim couldn't make a
> forward progress (aka reclaim pages) from non-protected memcgs. There
> are tracepoints you can use (generally vmscan prefix).
Ok, I am aware of why you get confused now. I think you are analysing
cgroup's behaviour according to a pre-defined workload and memory
pattern, which should work according to the design, such as processes
within root should provide memory before protected memcg get
reclaimed. You can refer [1] as the hierarchy, where effective
userspace workloads locate in protect groups and have rest of
processes be non-grouped. In fact, non-grouped ones can not provide
enough memory as they are kernel threads and the processes with few
pages on LRU(control logic inside). The practical scenario is groupA
launched a high-order kmalloc and introduce reclaiming(kswapd and
direct reclaim). As I said, non-grouped ones can not provide enough
contiguous memory blocks which let direct reclaim quickly fail for the
first round reclaiming. What I am trying to do is that let kswapd try
more for the target. It is also fair if groupA,B,C are trapping in
slow path concurrently.
[1]
root
| |
| |
non-grouped processes groupA groupB groupC
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-20 11:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-15 6:15 Huangzhaoyang
2021-10-15 20:00 ` Andrew Morton
2021-10-16 2:28 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2021-10-16 2:58 ` Andrew Morton
2021-10-16 3:05 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-16 8:17 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2021-10-18 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-18 9:25 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2021-10-18 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-19 7:11 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2021-10-19 9:09 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-19 12:17 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2021-10-19 13:23 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-20 7:33 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2021-10-20 8:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-20 11:45 ` Zhaoyang Huang [this message]
2021-10-20 15:11 ` 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='CAGWkznHF8Q8VEiKmDHNXW7Lf2=37=YXC+oP0COxe7WhY4bPWiQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.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