linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: terminate the reclaim early when direct reclaiming

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: <20180731111924.GI4557@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:19:24 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-patch-test@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: terminate the reclaim early when direct reclaiming

On Tue 31-07-18 19:09:28, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> This patch try to let the direct reclaim finish earlier than it used
> to be. The problem comes from We observing that the direct reclaim
> took a long time to finish when memcg is enabled. By debugging, we
> find that the reason is the softlimit is too low to meet the loop
> end criteria. So we add two barriers to judge if it has reclaimed
> enough memory as same criteria as it is in shrink_lruvec:
> 1. for each memcg softlimit reclaim.
> 2. before starting the global reclaim in shrink_zone.

Then I would really recommend to not use soft limit at all. It has
always been aggressive. I have propose to make it less so in the past we
have decided to go that way because we simply do not know whether
somebody depends on that behavior. Your changelog doesn't really tell
the whole story. Why is this a problem all of the sudden? Nothing has
really changed recently AFAICT. Cgroup v1 interface is mostly for
backward compatibility, we have much better ways to accomplish
workloads isolation in cgroup v2.

So why does it matter all of the sudden?

Besides that EXPORT_SYMBOL for such a low level functionality as the
memory reclaim is a big no-no.

So without a much better explanation and with a low level symbol
exported NAK from me.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...eadtrum.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memcontrol.h |  3 ++-
>  mm/memcontrol.c            |  3 +++
>  mm/vmscan.c                | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index 6c6fb11..a7e82c7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -325,7 +325,8 @@ void mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(struct page *page, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>  void mem_cgroup_uncharge_list(struct list_head *page_list);
>  
>  void mem_cgroup_migrate(struct page *oldpage, struct page *newpage);
> -
> +bool direct_reclaim_reach_watermark(pg_data_t *pgdat, unsigned long nr_reclaimed,
> +			unsigned long nr_scanned, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order);
>  static struct mem_cgroup_per_node *
>  mem_cgroup_nodeinfo(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid)
>  {
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 8c0280b..e4efd46 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2577,6 +2577,9 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order,
>  			(next_mz == NULL ||
>  			loop > MEM_CGROUP_MAX_SOFT_LIMIT_RECLAIM_LOOPS))
>  			break;
> +		if (direct_reclaim_reach_watermark(pgdat, nr_reclaimed,
> +					*total_scanned, gfp_mask, order))
> +			break;
>  	} while (!nr_reclaimed);
>  	if (next_mz)
>  		css_put(&next_mz->memcg->css);
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 03822f8..19503f3 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2518,6 +2518,34 @@ static bool pgdat_memcg_congested(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  		(memcg && memcg_congested(pgdat, memcg));
>  }
>  
> +bool direct_reclaim_reach_watermark(pg_data_t *pgdat, unsigned long nr_reclaimed,
> +		unsigned long nr_scanned, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> +		int order)
> +{
> +	struct scan_control sc = {
> +		.gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
> +		.order = order,
> +		.priority = DEF_PRIORITY,
> +		.nr_reclaimed = nr_reclaimed,
> +		.nr_scanned = nr_scanned,
> +	};
> +	if (!current_is_kswapd())
> +		return false;
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPACTION))
> +		return false;
> +	/*
> +	 * In fact, we add 1 to nr_reclaimed and nr_scanned to let should_continue_reclaim
> +	 * NOT return by finding they are zero, which means compaction_suitable()
> +	 * takes effect here to judge if we have reclaimed enough pages for passing
> +	 * the watermark and no necessary to check other memcg anymore.
> +	 */
> +	if (!should_continue_reclaim(pgdat,
> +				sc.nr_reclaimed + 1, sc.nr_scanned + 1, &sc))
> +		return true;
> +	return false;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(direct_reclaim_reach_watermark);
> +
>  static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>  {
>  	struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
> @@ -2802,7 +2830,15 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, struct scan_control *sc)
>  			sc->nr_scanned += nr_soft_scanned;
>  			/* need some check for avoid more shrink_zone() */
>  		}
> -
> +		/*
> +		 * we maybe have stolen enough pages from soft limit reclaim, so we return
> +		 * back if we are direct reclaim
> +		 */
> +		if (direct_reclaim_reach_watermark(zone->zone_pgdat, sc->nr_reclaimed,
> +						sc->nr_scanned, sc->gfp_mask, sc->order)) {
> +			sc->gfp_mask = orig_mask;
> +			return;
> +		}
>  		/* See comment about same check for global reclaim above */
>  		if (zone->zone_pgdat == last_pgdat)
>  			continue;
> -- 
> 1.9.1

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs