Re: Low TCP throughput due to vmpressure with swap enabled

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 05:28:24PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 2:11 PM Ivan Babrou <ivan@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:05 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:53:43PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > We have observed a negative TCP throughput behavior from the following commit:
> > > >
> > > > * 8e8ae645249b mm: memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket pressure
> > > >
> > > > It landed back in 2016 in v4.5, so it's not exactly a new issue.
> > > >
> > > > The crux of the issue is that in some cases with swap present the
> > > > workload can be unfairly throttled in terms of TCP throughput.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the detailed analysis, Ivan.
> > >
> > > Originally, we pushed back on sockets only when regular page reclaim
> > > had completely failed and we were about to OOM. This patch was an
> > > attempt to be smarter about it and equalize pressure more smoothly
> > > between socket memory, file cache, anonymous pages.
> > >
> > > After a recent discussion with Shakeel, I'm no longer quite sure the
> > > kernel is the right place to attempt this sort of balancing. It kind
> > > of depends on the workload which type of memory is more imporant. And
> > > your report shows that vmpressure is a flawed mechanism to implement
> > > this, anyway.
> > >
> > > So I'm thinking we should delete the vmpressure thing, and go back to
> > > socket throttling only if an OOM is imminent. This is in line with
> > > what we do at the system level: sockets get throttled only after
> > > reclaim fails and we hit hard limits. It's then up to the users and
> > > sysadmin to allocate a reasonable amount of buffers given the overall
> > > memory budget.
> > >
> > > Cgroup accounting, limiting and OOM enforcement is still there for the
> > > socket buffers, so misbehaving groups will be contained either way.
> > >
> > > What do you think? Something like the below patch?
> >
> > The idea sounds very reasonable to me. I can't really speak for the
> > patch contents with any sort of authority, but it looks ok to my
> > non-expert eyes.
> >
> > There were some conflicts when cherry-picking this into v5.15. I think
> > the only real one was for the "!sc->proactive" condition not being
> > present there. For the rest I just accepted the incoming change.
> >
> > I'm going to be away from my work computer until December 5th, but
> > I'll try to expedite my backported patch to a production machine today
> > to confirm that it makes the difference. If I can get some approvals
> > on my internal PRs, I should be able to provide the results by EOD
> > tomorrow.
> 
> I tried the patch and something isn't right here.

Thanks for giving it a sping.

> With the patch applied I'm capped at ~120MB/s, which is a symptom of a
> clamped window.
> 
> I can't find any sockets with memcg->socket_pressure = 1, but at the
> same time I only see the following rcv_ssthresh assigned to sockets:

Hm, I don't see how socket accounting would alter the network behavior
other than through socket_pressure=1.

How do you look for that flag? If you haven't yet done something
comparable, can you try with tracing to rule out sampling errors?

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 066166aebbef..134b623bee6a 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -7211,6 +7211,7 @@ bool mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages,
 		goto success;
 	}
 	memcg->socket_pressure = 1;
+	trace_printk("skmem charge failed nr_pages=%u gfp=%pGg\n", nr_pages, &gfp_mask);
 	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
 		try_charge(memcg, gfp_mask, nr_pages);
 		goto success;