[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130208160119.GE7557@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:01:19 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: azurIt <azurit@...ox.sk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups mailinglist <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 3.2.34] memcg: do not trigger OOM from
add_to_page_cache_locked
On Fri 08-02-13 10:40:13, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2013/02/07 20:01), Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
[...]
> >Hmm. do we need to increase the "limit" virtually at memcg oom until
> >the oom-killed process dies ?
>
> Here is my naive idea...
and the next step would be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap :P
But seriously now. The idea is not bad at all. This implementation
would need some tweaks to work though (e.g. you would need to wake oom
sleepers when you get a loan - because those are ones which can block
the resource). We should also give the borrowed charges only to those
who would oom to prevent from stealing.
I think that it should be mem_cgroup_out_of_memory who establishes the
loan and it can have a look at how much memory the killed task frees -
e.g. some portion of get_mm_rss() or a more precise but much more
expensive traversing via private vmas and check whether they charged
memory from the target memcg hierarchy (this is a slow path anyway).
But who knows maybe a fixed 2MB would work out as well.
Thanks!
> ==
> From 1a46318cf89e7df94bd4844f29105b61dacf335b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:43:52 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] [Don't Apply][PATCH] memcg relax resource at OOM situation.
>
> When an OOM happens, a task is killed and resources will be freed.
>
> A problem here is that a task, which is oom-killed, may wait for
> some other resource in which memory resource is required. Some thread
> waits for free memory may holds some mutex and oom-killed process
> wait for the mutex.
>
> To avoid this, relaxing charged memory by giving virtual resource
> can be a help. The system can get back it at uncharge().
> This is a sample native implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 25ac5f4..4dea49a 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -301,6 +301,9 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> /* set when res.limit == memsw.limit */
> bool memsw_is_minimum;
> + /* extra resource at emergency situation */
> + unsigned long loan;
> + spinlock_t loan_lock;
> /* protect arrays of thresholds */
> struct mutex thresholds_lock;
> @@ -2034,6 +2037,61 @@ static int mem_cgroup_soft_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
> mem_cgroup_iter_break(root_memcg, victim);
> return total;
> }
> +/*
> + * When a memcg is in OOM situation, this lack of resource may cause deadlock
> + * because of complicated lock dependency(i_mutex...). To avoid that, we
> + * need extra resource or avoid charging.
> + *
> + * A memcg can request resource in an emergency state. We call it as loan.
> + * A memcg will return a loan when it does uncharge resource. We disallow
> + * double-loan and moving task to other groups until the loan is fully
> + * returned.
> + *
> + * Note: the problem here is that we cannot know what amount resouce should
> + * be necessary to exiting an emergency state.....
> + */
> +#define LOAN_MAX (2 * 1024 * 1024)
> +
> +static void mem_cgroup_make_loan(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + u64 usage;
> + unsigned long amount;
> +
> + amount = LOAN_MAX;
> +
> + usage = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_USAGE);
> + if (amount > usage /2 )
> + amount = usage / 2;
> + spin_lock(&memcg->loan_lock);
> + if (memcg->loan) {
> + spin_unlock(&memcg->loan_lock);
> + return;
> + }
> + memcg->loan = amount;
> + res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->res, amount);
> + if (do_swap_account)
> + res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, amount);
> + spin_unlock(&memcg->loan_lock);
> +}
> +
> +/* return amount of free resource which can be uncharged */
> +static unsigned long
> +mem_cgroup_may_return_loan(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned long val)
> +{
> + unsigned long tmp;
> + /* we don't care small race here */
> + if (unlikely(!memcg->loan))
> + return val;
> + spin_lock(&memcg->loan_lock);
> + if (memcg->loan) {
> + tmp = min(memcg->loan, val);
> + memcg->loan -= tmp;
> + val -= tmp;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&memcg->loan_lock);
> + return val;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Check OOM-Killer is already running under our hierarchy.
> @@ -2182,6 +2240,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask,
> if (need_to_kill) {
> finish_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait);
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order);
> + mem_cgroup_make_loan(memcg);
> } else {
> schedule();
> finish_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait);
> @@ -2748,6 +2807,8 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)) {
> unsigned long bytes = nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
> + bytes = mem_cgroup_may_return_loan(memcg, bytes);
> +
> res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->res, bytes);
> if (do_swap_account)
> res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, bytes);
> @@ -3989,6 +4050,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_do_uncharge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> {
> struct memcg_batch_info *batch = NULL;
> bool uncharge_memsw = true;
> + unsigned long val;
> /* If swapout, usage of swap doesn't decrease */
> if (!do_swap_account || ctype == MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_SWAPOUT)
> @@ -4029,9 +4091,11 @@ static void mem_cgroup_do_uncharge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> batch->memsw_nr_pages++;
> return;
> direct_uncharge:
> - res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->res, nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
> + val = nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
> + val = mem_cgroup_may_return_loan(memcg, val);
> + res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->res, val);
> if (uncharge_memsw)
> - res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
> + res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, val);
> if (unlikely(batch->memcg != memcg))
> memcg_oom_recover(memcg);
> }
> @@ -4182,6 +4246,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_start(void)
> void mem_cgroup_uncharge_end(void)
> {
> struct memcg_batch_info *batch = ¤t->memcg_batch;
> + unsigned long val;
> if (!batch->do_batch)
> return;
> @@ -4192,16 +4257,16 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_end(void)
> if (!batch->memcg)
> return;
> + val = batch->nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
> + val = mem_cgroup_may_return_loan(batch->memcg, val);
> /*
> * This "batch->memcg" is valid without any css_get/put etc...
> * bacause we hide charges behind us.
> */
> if (batch->nr_pages)
> - res_counter_uncharge(&batch->memcg->res,
> - batch->nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
> + res_counter_uncharge(&batch->memcg->res, val);
> if (batch->memsw_nr_pages)
> - res_counter_uncharge(&batch->memcg->memsw,
> - batch->memsw_nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
> + res_counter_uncharge(&batch->memcg->memsw, val);
> memcg_oom_recover(batch->memcg);
> /* forget this pointer (for sanity check) */
> batch->memcg = NULL;
> @@ -6291,6 +6356,8 @@ mem_cgroup_css_alloc(struct cgroup *cont)
> memcg->move_charge_at_immigrate = 0;
> mutex_init(&memcg->thresholds_lock);
> spin_lock_init(&memcg->move_lock);
> + memcg->loan = 0;
> + spin_lock_init(&memcg->loan_lock);
> return &memcg->css;
> --
> 1.7.10.2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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