linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] memcg: stop vmscan when enough done.

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: <20110811085252.b29081f1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:52:52 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6]  memcg: stop vmscan when enough done.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:14:25 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Tue 09-08-11 19:09:33, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > memcg :avoid node fallback scan if possible.
> > 
> > Now, try_to_free_pages() scans all zonelist because the page allocator
> > should visit all zonelists...but that behavior is harmful for memcg.
> > Memcg just scans memory because it hits limit...no memory shortage
> > in pased zonelist.
> > 
> > For example, with following unbalanced nodes
> > 
> >      Node 0    Node 1
> > File 1G        0
> > Anon 200M      200M
> > 
> > memcg will cause swap-out from Node1 at every vmscan.
> > 
> > Another example, assume 1024 nodes system.
> > With 1024 node system, memcg will visit 1024 nodes
> > pages per vmscan... This is overkilling. 
> > 
> > This is why memcg's victim node selection logic doesn't work
> > as expected.
> > 
> > This patch is a help for stopping vmscan when we scanned enough.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> 
> OK, I see the point. At first I was afraid that we would make a bigger
> pressure on the node which triggered the reclaim but as we are selecting
> t dynamically (mem_cgroup_select_victim_node) - round robin at the
> moment - it should be fair in the end. More targeted node selection
> should be even more efficient.
> 
> I still have a concern about resize_limit code path, though. It uses
> memcg direct reclaim to get under the new limit (assuming it is lower
> than the current one). 
> Currently we might reclaim nr_nodes * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX while
> after your change we have it at SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. This means that
> mem_cgroup_resize_mem_limit might fail sooner on large NUMA machines
> (currently it is doing 5 rounds of reclaim before it gives up). I do not
> consider this to be blocker but maybe we should enhance
> mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim with a nr_pages argument to tell it how
> much we want to reclaim (min(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, nr_pages)).
> What do you think?
> 

Hmm,

> mem_cgroup_resize_mem_limit might fail sooner on large NUMA machines

mem_cgroup_resize_limit() just checks (curusage < prevusage), then, 
I agree reducing the number of scan/reclaim will cause that.

I agree to pass nr_pages to try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages().


Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/