linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

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]

Date:   Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:18:42 -0700
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To:     Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:50 PM Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Apologies for the delayed response,
>
> Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:39 AM Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> writes:
> >> > From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> >> >
> >> > Introduce an memcg interface to trigger memory reclaim on a memory cgroup.
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > +
> >> > +     while (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim) {
> >> > +             unsigned long reclaimed;
> >> > +
> >> > +             if (signal_pending(current))
> >> > +                     break;
> >> > +
> >> > +             reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> >> > +                                             nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed,
> >> > +                                             GFP_KERNEL, true);
> >> > +
> >> > +             if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
> >> > +                     break;
> >> > +
> >> > +             nr_reclaimed += reclaimed;
> >>
> >> I think there should be a cond_resched() in this loop before
> >> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() to have better chances of reclaim
> >> succeding early.
> >>
> > Thanks for taking the time to look at this!
> >
> > I believe this loop is modeled after the loop in memory_high_write()
> > for the memory.high interface. Is there a reason why it should be
> > needed here but not there?
> >
>
> memory_high_write() calls drain_all_stock() atleast once before calling
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(). This would drain all percpu stocks
> for the given memcg and its descendents, giving a high chance
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() to succeed quickly. Such a functionality
> is missing from this patch.
>
> Adding a cond_resched() would atleast give chance to other processess
> within the memcg to run and make forward progress thereby making more
> pages available for reclaim.
>
> Suggestion is partly based on __perform_reclaim() issues a cond_resche()
> as it may get called repeatedly during direct reclaim path.
>
As Michal pointed out, there is already a call to cond_resched() in
shrink_node_memcgs().
>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers
> >> ~ Vaibhav
> >
>
> --
> Cheers
> ~ Vaibhav