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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E42C38A2D for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6E95B8E0002; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 06:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 69A2F8E0001; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 06:42:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 562378E0002; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 06:42:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466748E0001 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 06:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1692540A25 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:45 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80062762290.15.C32D2DC Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345E41C0009 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29Q9Xsos002280; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:36 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=WNgUFtjWGH9USvKvZLQ17iS+WULiQ+H9RzkSYjfcDn8=; b=c8MXXqzI14y8fJvfgYIuPrKptVGE6dvAYHqTKDmIr1boC1ayA2Yrp5P2qLc8l9uMFTFE E1fi/3qACWZ8OAzACJ55CXsl9fzlI3E1MjGXy738PoUI9CT8nw4N/j3cCaYTo+mHVB2l GC08DHre0ltr6IRrIZnZqoiXCG1yu9HD+SfA6B+XCBgTrMAo75ZLZbguZF3OpHjSAAbI wpdnX4f+DbyGCRlBMMCeyAPW4GeA2+Y98ZN0mXtR8YrfCVzI8ZCzJolr7f9qhXZELR16 lp0K49WbgcDIrf4HViMxzutJtbiBfNEmEG7pK9JDEfP+G7Dop7w76SX7ODaBikQl06ba Sg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kewph29xv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:36 +0000 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29QAJlcP023694; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:35 GMT Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3kewph29ws-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:35 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 29QAYsSd012673; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:33 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kdugaux0s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:32 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 29QAgUQg42205620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:30 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C42DAE051; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA93AE045; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.43.91.80] (unknown [9.43.91.80]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:42:26 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:12:25 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion Content-Language: en-US To: Michal Hocko , Feng Tang Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Zefan Li , Waiman Long , "Huang, Ying" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Hansen, Dave" , "Chen, Tim C" , "Yin, Fengwei" References: <20221026074343.6517-1-feng.tang@intel.com> From: Aneesh Kumar K V In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: B8Yy4Vryoz1bfCOlBhP62fdAHQVDl50e X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: gsWuB0QGRMpc6iSOccX_MWZSRDyoKLb1 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-26_05,2022-10-26_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2209130000 definitions=main-2210260057 ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1666780964; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=cYepMBuDA13tzwxx1VPT0dJg8au2QdRJvcBMkYk0/TyqkjRg/UA5nztCACO6Jioh7jyDgk d2UJIrvwDrFwpSu+yvCIHlkrtvBT0pq8ejrfWYZe7fz4LbphLJBfoFcbFyxRPlBu52br4e d4v6hL9+GSnsCroYbIHCP9CSjfLMMd4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=c8MXXqzI; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.156.1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1666780964; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=WNgUFtjWGH9USvKvZLQ17iS+WULiQ+H9RzkSYjfcDn8=; b=HQTy7yCaRnYG3jMk0UdEUIdfuPk8dTdZsGF116NHRrQJ1eDWOoBGAqUXu2HSeFSuwU+GN1 +Y5qlMbClHgAlPe7o0kxEMZKUHXey3Lud1gdqvxNrDXNw/hbKGkO52jB0nmDEGAuT9rczB PYQCGIP8TcZyb9sUe74+3L+ZnByJYX0= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 345E41C0009 Authentication-Results: imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=c8MXXqzI; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.156.1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: tz7p34kw4wg83ftk7smhwiyhxpd4kc33 X-HE-Tag: 1666780963-484872 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 10/26/22 2:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 26-10-22 16:00:13, Feng Tang wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 03:49:48PM +0800, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote: >>> On 10/26/22 1:13 PM, Feng Tang wrote: >>>> In page reclaim path, memory could be demoted from faster memory tier >>>> to slower memory tier. Currently, there is no check about cpuset's >>>> memory policy, that even if the target demotion node is not allowd >>>> by cpuset, the demotion will still happen, which breaks the cpuset >>>> semantics. >>>> >>>> So add cpuset policy check in the demotion path and skip demotion >>>> if the demotion targets are not allowed by cpuset. >>>> >>> >>> What about the vma policy or the task memory policy? Shouldn't we respect >>> those memory policy restrictions while demoting the page? >> >> Good question! We have some basic patches to consider memory policy >> in demotion path too, which are still under test, and will be posted >> soon. And the basic idea is similar to this patch. > > For that you need to consult each vma and it's owning task(s) and that > to me sounds like something to be done in folio_check_references. > Relying on memcg to get a cpuset cgroup is really ugly and not really > 100% correct. Memory controller might be disabled and then you do not > have your association anymore. > I was looking at this recently and I am wondering whether we should worry about VM_SHARE vmas. ie, page_to_policy() can just reverse lookup just one VMA and fetch the policy right? if it VM_SHARE it will be a shared policy we can find using vma->vm_file? For non anonymous and anon vma not having any policy set it is owning task vma->vm_mm->owner task policy ? We don't worry about multiple tasks that can be possibly sharing that page right? > This all can get quite expensive so the primary question is, does the > existing behavior generates any real issues or is this more of an > correctness exercise? I mean it certainly is not great to demote to an > incompatible numa node but are there any reasonable configurations when > the demotion target node is explicitly excluded from memory > policy/cpuset? I guess vma policy is important. Applications want to make sure that they don't have variable performance and they go to lengths to avoid that by using MEM_BIND. So if they access the memory they always know access is satisfied from a specific set of NUMA nodes. Swapin can cause performance impact but then all continued access will be from a specific NUMA nodes. With slow memory demotion that is not going to be the case. Large in-memory database applications are observed to be sensitive to these access latencies. -aneesh