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=-11.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 00234C4727D for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:38:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686002371F for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:38:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="PEveOPJ4" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 686002371F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8C4DE6B0003; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 84E646B0055; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:38:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 716866B005A; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:38:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0147.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.147]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558006B0003 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D99181AEF07 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:38:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77292162192.23.eye18_4801d0627151 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E048D37606 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:38:15 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: eye18_4801d0627151 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5482 Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com [209.85.167.65]) by imf26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 22:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id u8so19846151lff.1 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:38:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kz1r3HryQXkqiHLbeEAR38DUzaGNclbO2eXYvZIA+ds=; b=PEveOPJ4f+0wPNEXIsHG8QLe8dbfpf8OdIEE6qNAO3XlrxzsUHAu74xNxac3EcBv9t dwEq57/jrqdVV/9aTw+Th/XfWtRdyXU6PKI3/dnPQxVV2LGqgvaOgOJv5OqTMymOVSsy WdVlHiF28s/uN7WlQsIHt0hHAcWAF+djM4/XWns9QU/+dfQwFJMwSDmyLmZV7LHrGHfL BkPhiggvEhn1Flrys0yzy4GOf3iZkydCMQmK9XKRAzArQmezqLJgaZaHSd34Ti50coa2 Nv4uQ3TAP3SKcOC5xbevm8k2P32aTTvTD2nCMQbFnwfCjdFPsCm9OOKvfE/fxbqDL7s7 2/aw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kz1r3HryQXkqiHLbeEAR38DUzaGNclbO2eXYvZIA+ds=; b=h5dztB2mF+vKoyFb0hvhTbU2o94ozs6NVFJL7GBBHf/IGgeFcvEAhQ2NpbJK0xIifd wEHrGBOTSjikG6mi/8VLvKhQ54Jl6DbJD94DxP7W8lr6z2IQ2TaUcgV4TnIxna71SpO8 0cNcZqX8IZbiYSel/v3kCT37V/8PFebOk5HF74TnUno4DOUBPfSH37d9/vAQNx7251Yr 5PlkLv9F1fRIzShza4zJEROd5DvUsLMbYiA5M3JapRzu1smx8/zeKVNZ86hsSU5lK6fE 8whv4Osv/16Um5XpaMB/Wc9Mi4NjK9gjRTmi0zxnrm+T2x+cTELTGVjwzu+RUcdw7iUN /6hQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533me+au2Qzc7sau9AdyU6mDRCpPb0A6dQBu0aFSZDMYH5snGBFG SeTD6wS4VDTjD3IethumvalDgvAEl0/Gw99rZhnOTg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwuNBY+V7rXksw9rccGS9KOhgYhQGlDxwn1zsa6nipKGdB1CZnNacLxI1SucX6x2HYPz3onbdDT2ECfYkUj9Ds= X-Received: by 2002:a19:4084:: with SMTP id n126mr2186902lfa.54.1600814293613; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:38:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200909215752.1725525-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20200921163055.GQ12990@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200922114908.GZ12990@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200922165527.GD12990@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200922190859.GH12990@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20200922190859.GH12990@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Shakeel Butt Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:38:01 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface To: Michal Hocko Cc: Minchan Kim , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Greg Thelen , David Rientjes , =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= , Andrew Morton , Linux MM , Cgroups , LKML , Yang Shi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:09 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 22-09-20 11:10:17, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:55 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Last but not least the memcg > > > background reclaim is something that should be possible without a new > > > interface. > > > > So, it comes down to adding more functionality/semantics to > > memory.high or introducing a new simple interface. I am fine with > > either of one but IMO convoluted memory.high might have a higher > > maintenance cost. > > One idea would be to schedule a background worker (which work on behalf > on the memcg) to do the high limit reclaim with high limit target as > soon as the high limit is reached. There would be one work item for each > memcg. Userspace would recheck the high limit on return to the userspace > and do the reclaim if the excess is larger than a threshold, and sleep > as the fallback. > > Excessive consumers would get throttled if the background work cannot > keep up with the charge pace and most of them would return without doing > any reclaim because there is somebody working on their behalf - and is > accounted for that. > > The semantic of high limit would be preserved IMHO because high limit is > actively throttled. Where that work is done shouldn't matter as long as > it is accounted properly and memcg cannot outsource all the work to the > rest of the system. > > Would something like that (with many details to be sorted out of course) > be feasible? > Well what about the proactive reclaim use-case? You are targeting only uswapd/background-reclaim use-case. > If we do not want to change the existing semantic of high and want a new > api then I think having another limit for the background reclaim then > that would make more sense to me. It would resemble the global reclaim > and kswapd model and something that would be easier to reason about. > Comparing to echo $N > reclaim which might mean to reclaim any number > pages around N. > -- I am not really against the approach you are proposing but "echo $N > reclaim" allows more flexibility and enables more use-cases.