From: hui.zhu@linux.dev
To: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>, chenridong@huaweicloud.com
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
"Shakeel Butt" <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
"Muchun Song" <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
"Eduard Zingerman" <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
"Song Liu" <song@kernel.org>,
"Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
"KP Singh" <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
"Stanislav Fomichev" <sdf@fomichev.me>,
"Hao Luo" <haoluo@google.com>, "Jiri Olsa" <jolsa@kernel.org>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@kernel.org>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Jeff Xu" <jeffxu@chromium.org>,
"Jan Hendrik Farr" <kernel@jfarr.cc>,
"Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>,
"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Brian Gerst" <brgerst@gmail.com>,
"Masahiro Yamada" <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
davem@davemloft.net, "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, "Hui Zhu" <zhuhui@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Memory Controller eBPF support
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2026 09:30:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a935563217affe85b2a6d0689914d7aba2ce127f@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <enlefo5mmoha2htsrvv76tdmj6yum4jan6hgym76adtpxuhvrp@aug6qh3ocde5>
2025年12月30日 17:49, "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com mailto:mkoutny@suse.com?to=%22Michal%20Koutn%C3%BD%22%20%3Cmkoutny%40suse.com%3E > 写到:
Hi Michal and Ridong,
>
> Hi Hui.
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 11:01:58AM +0800, Hui Zhu <hui.zhu@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> >
> > This allows administrators to suppress low-priority cgroups' memory
> > usage based on custom policies implemented in BPF programs.
> >
> BTW memory.low was conceived as a work-conserving mechanism for
> prioritization of different workloads. Have you tried that? No need to
> go directly to (high) limits. (<- Main question, below are some
> secondary implementation questions/remarks.)
>
> ...
>
memory.low is a helpful feature, but it can struggle to effectively
throttle low-priority processes that continuously access their memory.
For instance, consider the following example I ran:
root@ubuntu:~# echo $((4 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024)) > /sys/fs/cgroup/high/memory.low
root@ubuntu:~# cgexec -g memory:low stress-ng --vm 4 --vm-keep --vm-bytes 80% --vm-method all --seed 2025 --metrics -t 60 & cgexec -g memory:high stress-ng --vm 4 --vm-keep --vm-bytes 80% --vm-method all --seed 2025 --metrics -t 60
[1] 2011
stress-ng: info: [2011] setting to a 1 min, 0 secs run per stressor
stress-ng: info: [2012] setting to a 1 min, 0 secs run per stressor
stress-ng: info: [2011] dispatching hogs: 4 vm
stress-ng: info: [2012] dispatching hogs: 4 vm
stress-ng: metrc: [2012] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s CPU used per RSS Max
stress-ng: metrc: [2012] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) instance (%) (KB)
stress-ng: metrc: [2012] vm 23584 60.21 2.75 15.94 391.73 1262.07 7.76 649988
stress-ng: info: [2012] skipped: 0
stress-ng: info: [2012] passed: 4: vm (4)
stress-ng: info: [2012] failed: 0
stress-ng: info: [2012] metrics untrustworthy: 0
stress-ng: info: [2012] successful run completed in 1 min, 0.22 secs
stress-ng: metrc: [2011] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s CPU used per RSS Max
stress-ng: metrc: [2011] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) instance (%) (KB)
stress-ng: metrc: [2011] vm 23584 60.22 3.06 16.19 391.63 1224.97 7.99 688836
stress-ng: info: [2011] skipped: 0
stress-ng: info: [2011] passed: 4: vm (4)
stress-ng: info: [2011] failed: 0
stress-ng: info: [2011] metrics untrustworthy: 0
stress-ng: info: [2011] successful run completed in 1 min, 0.23 secs
As the results show, setting memory.low on the cgroup with the
high-priority workload did not improve its memory performance.
However, memory.low is beneficial in many other scenarios.
Perhaps extending it with eBPF support could help address a wider
range of issues.
> >
> > This series introduces a BPF hook that allows reporting
> > additional "pages over high" for specific cgroups, effectively
> > increasing memory pressure and throttling for lower-priority
> > workloads when higher-priority cgroups need resources.
> >
> Have you considered hooking into calculate_high_delay() instead? (That
> function has undergone some evolution so it'd seem like the candidate
> for BPFication.)
>
It seems that try_charge_memcg will not reach
__mem_cgroup_handle_over_high if it only hook calculate_high_delay
without setting memory.high.
What do you think about hooking try_charge_memcg as well,
so that it ensures __mem_cgroup_handle_over_high is called?
> ...
>
> >
> > 3. Cgroup hierarchy management (inheritance during online/offline)
> >
> I see you're copying the program upon memcg creation.
> Configuration copies aren't such a good way to properly handle
> hierarchical behavior.
> I wonder if this could follow the more generic pattern of how BPF progs
> are evaluated in hierarchies, see BPF_F_ALLOW_OVERRIDE and
> BPF_F_ALLOW_MULTI.
I will support them in the next version.
>
> >
> > Example Results
> >
> ...
>
> >
> > Results show the low-priority cgroup (/sys/fs/cgroup/low) was
> > significantly throttled:
> > - High-priority cgroup: 21,033,377 bogo ops at 347,825 ops/s
> > - Low-priority cgroup: 11,568 bogo ops at 177 ops/s
> >
> > The stress-ng process in the low-priority cgroup experienced a
> > ~99.9% slowdown in memory operations compared to the
> > high-priority cgroup, demonstrating effective priority
> > enforcement through BPF-controlled memory pressure.
> >
> As a demonstrator, it'd be good to compare this with a baseline without
> any extra progs, e.g. show that high-prio performed better and low-prio
> wasn't throttled for nothing.
Thanks for your remind.
This is a test log in the test environment without any extra progs:
root@ubuntu:~# cgexec -g memory:low stress-ng --vm 4 --vm-keep --vm-bytes 80% \
--vm-method all --seed 2025 --metrics -t 60 \
& cgexec -g memory:high stress-ng --vm 4 --vm-keep --vm-bytes 80% \
--vm-method all --seed 2025 --metrics -t 60
[1] 982
stress-ng: info: [982] setting to a 1 min, 0 secs run per stressor
stress-ng: info: [983] setting to a 1 min, 0 secs run per stressor
stress-ng: info: [982] dispatching hogs: 4 vm
stress-ng: info: [983] dispatching hogs: 4 vm
stress-ng: metrc: [982] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s CPU used per RSS Max
stress-ng: metrc: [982] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) instance (%) (KB)
stress-ng: metrc: [982] vm 23544 60.08 2.90 15.74 391.85 1263.43 7.75 524708
stress-ng: info: [982] skipped: 0
stress-ng: info: [982] passed: 4: vm (4)
stress-ng: info: [982] failed: 0
stress-ng: info: [982] metrics untrustworthy: 0
stress-ng: info: [982] successful run completed in 1 min, 0.09 secs
stress-ng: metrc: [983] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s CPU used per RSS Max
stress-ng: metrc: [983] (secs) (secs) (secs) (real time) (usr+sys time) instance (%) (KB)
stress-ng: metrc: [983] vm 23544 60.09 3.12 15.91 391.81 1237.10 7.92 705076
stress-ng: info: [983] skipped: 0
stress-ng: info: [983] passed: 4: vm (4)
stress-ng: info: [983] failed: 0
stress-ng: info: [983] metrics untrustworthy: 0
stress-ng: info: [983] successful run completed in 1 min, 0.09 secs
Best,
Hui
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-04 9:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-30 3:01 Hui Zhu
2025-12-30 3:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm: memcontrol: Add BPF struct_ops for memory pressure control Hui Zhu
2025-12-30 3:02 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests for memcg_bpf_ops Hui Zhu
2025-12-30 3:02 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] samples/bpf: Add memcg priority control example Hui Zhu
2025-12-30 9:49 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Memory Controller eBPF support Michal Koutný
2025-12-30 13:24 ` Chen Ridong
2026-01-04 9:30 ` hui.zhu [this message]
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=a935563217affe85b2a6d0689914d7aba2ce127f@linux.dev \
--to=hui.zhu@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenridong@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=jeffxu@chromium.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@jfarr.cc \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=zhuhui@kylinos.cn \
/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