[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210112170322.GA99586@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:03:22 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: prevent starvation when writing
memory.high
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:30:11AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When a value is written to a cgroup's memory.high control file, the
> write() context first tries to reclaim the cgroup to size before
> putting the limit in place for the workload. Concurrent charges from
> the workload can keep such a write() looping in reclaim indefinitely.
>
> In the past, a write to memory.high would first put the limit in place
> for the workload, then do targeted reclaim until the new limit has
> been met - similar to how we do it for memory.max. This wasn't prone
> to the described starvation issue. However, this sequence could cause
> excessive latencies in the workload, when allocating threads could be
> put into long penalty sleeps on the sudden memory.high overage created
> by the write(), before that had a chance to work it off.
>
> Now that memory_high_write() performs reclaim before enforcing the new
> limit, reflect that the cgroup may well fail to converge due to
> concurrent workload activity. Bail out of the loop after a few tries.
>
> Fixes: 536d3bf261a2 ("mm: memcontrol: avoid workload stalls when lowering memory.high")
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 5.8+
> Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 605f671203ef..63a8d47c1cd3 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -6275,7 +6275,6 @@ static ssize_t memory_high_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>
> for (;;) {
> unsigned long nr_pages = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
> - unsigned long reclaimed;
>
> if (nr_pages <= high)
> break;
> @@ -6289,10 +6288,10 @@ static ssize_t memory_high_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> continue;
> }
>
> - reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages - high,
> - GFP_KERNEL, true);
> + try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages - high,
> + GFP_KERNEL, true);
>
> - if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
> + if (!nr_retries--)
Shouldn't it be (!reclaimed || !nr_retries) instead?
If reclaimed == 0, it probably doesn't make much sense to retry.
Otherwise the patch looks good to me.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists