[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGWkznF+dBjLzAxMMXWYSZ_5q3KA-ou0P7XM7jSYN7JSRp8N0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:43:52 +0800
From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
"zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Ke Wang <ke.wang@...soc.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: use root_mem_cgroup when css is inherited
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 6:27 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 24-08-22 17:34:42, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:50 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 24-08-22 10:23:14, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:51 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > One way to achieve that would be shaping the hierarchy the following way
> > > > > root
> > > > > / \
> > > > > no_memcg[1] memcg[2]
> > > > > |||||||| |||||
> > > > > app_cgroups app_cgroups
> > > > >
> > > > > with
> > > > > no_memcg.subtree_control = ""
> > > > > memcg.subtree_control = memory
> > > > >
> > > > > no?
> > > > According to my understanding, No as there will be no no_memcg. All
> > > > children groups under root would have its cgroup.controllers = memory
> > > > as long as root has memory enabled.
> > >
> > > Correct
> > >
> > > > Under this circumstance, all
> > > > descendants group under 'no_memcg' will charge memory to its parent
> > > > group.
> > >
> > > Correct. And why is that a problem? I thought you main concern was a per
> > > application LRUs. With the above configuration all app_cgroups which do
> > > not require an explicit memory control will share the same (no_memcg)
> > > LRU and they will be aged together.
> > I can't agree since this indicates the processes want memory free
> > depending on a specific hierarchy which could have been determined by
> > other subsys.
>
> I really fail to understand your requirements.
>
> > IMHO, charging the pages which out of explicitly memory
> > enabled group to root could solve all of the above constraints with no
> > harm.
>
> This would break the hierarchical property of the controller. So a
> strong no no. Consider the following example
>
> root
> |
> A
> controllers="memory"
> memory.max = 1G
> subtree_control=""
> | | |
> A1 A2 A3
>
> althought A1,2,3 do not have their memory controller enabled explicitly
> they are still constrained by the A memcg limit. If you just charge to
> the root because it doesn't have memory controller enabled explicitly
> then you just evade that constrain. I hope you understand why that is a
> problem.
IMO, A1-A3 should be explicitly enabled via echo "+memory" >
A/subtree_control since memory.max has been set. How should AA3
achieve the goal of compete with AA4,A1,A2 for cpu but keep memory out
of control under current policy?
root
|
A
controllers="memory,cpu"
memory.max = 1G
subtree_control="memory,cpu"
| | |
A1 A2 A3 subtree_control="cpu"
| |
AA3 AA4 controllers="cpu"
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists