| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTimHEGj1p0kXGA+cNgNHYpoFViyLd4XMSPg+dYZtct_fsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:33:32 -0700
From: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
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 Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>> On Thu 09-06-11 17:00:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> There is also another problem. I have just realized that this code path
>> is shared with the cgroup direct reclaim. We shouldn't care about soft
>> limit in such a situation. It would be just a wasting of cycles. So we
>> have to:
>>
>> if (current_is_kswapd() &&
>> !mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem) &&
>> priority > MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY)
>> continue;
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> Maybe the condition would have to be more complex for per-cgroup
>> background reclaim, though.
>
> That would be the same logic for per-memcg direct reclaim. In general,
> we don't consider soft_limit
> unless the global memory pressure. So the condition could be something like:
>
>> if ( global_reclaim(sc) &&
>> !mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(root, mem) &&
>> priority > MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY)
>> continue;
>
> make sense?
Also
+bool mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
+{
+ return res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&mem->res);
+}
--Ying
>
> Thanks
>
> --Ying
>>
>>> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists