linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/8] memcg: rework soft limit reclaim

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110609150026.GD3994@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:00:26 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/8] memcg: rework soft limit reclaim

On Thu 02-06-11 22:25:29, Ying Han wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> >> Currently, soft limit reclaim is entered from kswapd, where it selects
[...]
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> index c7d4b44..0163840 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> @@ -1988,9 +1988,13 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> >>                unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
> >>                unsigned long scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> >>                unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> >> +               int epriority = priority;
> >> +
> >> +               if (mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem))
> >> +                       epriority -= 1;
> >
> > Here we grant the ability to shrink from all the memcgs, but only
> > higher the priority for those exceed the soft_limit. That is a design
> > change
> > for the "soft_limit" which giving a hint to which memcgs to reclaim
> > from first under global memory pressure.
> 
> 
> Basically, we shouldn't reclaim from a memcg under its soft_limit
> unless we have trouble reclaim pages from others. 

Agreed.

> Something like the following makes better sense:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index bdc2fd3..b82ba8c 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1989,6 +1989,8 @@ restart:
>         throttle_vm_writeout(sc->gfp_mask);
>  }
> 
> +#define MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY       2
> +
>  static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
>                                 struct scan_control *sc)
>  {
> @@ -2001,13 +2003,13 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
>                 unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
>                 unsigned long scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
>                 unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> -               int epriority = priority;
> 
> -               if (mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem))
> -                       epriority -= 1;
> +               if (!mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem) &&
> +                               priority > MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY)
> +                       continue;

yes, this makes sense but I am not sure about the right(tm) value of the
MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY. 2 sounds too low. You would do quite a
lot of loops 
(DEFAULT_PRIORITY-MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY) * zones * memcg_count
without any progress (assuming that all of them are under soft limit
which doesn't sound like a totally artificial configuration) until you
allow reclaiming from groups that are under soft limit. Then, when you
finally get to reclaiming, you scan rather aggressively.

Maybe something like 3/4 of DEFAULT_PRIORITY? You would get 3 times
over all (unbalanced) zones and all cgroups that are above the limit
(scanning max{1/4096+1/2048+1/1024, 3*SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX} of the LRUs for
each cgroup) which could be enough to collect the low hanging fruit.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/