[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d17698d2-c1b5-9aa3-6271-838830d36cc5@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:12:25 +0530
From: Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion
On 10/26/22 2:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-10-22 16:00:13, Feng Tang wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 03:49:48PM +0800, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>>> On 10/26/22 1:13 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
>>>> In page reclaim path, memory could be demoted from faster memory tier
>>>> to slower memory tier. Currently, there is no check about cpuset's
>>>> memory policy, that even if the target demotion node is not allowd
>>>> by cpuset, the demotion will still happen, which breaks the cpuset
>>>> semantics.
>>>>
>>>> So add cpuset policy check in the demotion path and skip demotion
>>>> if the demotion targets are not allowed by cpuset.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about the vma policy or the task memory policy? Shouldn't we respect
>>> those memory policy restrictions while demoting the page?
>>
>> Good question! We have some basic patches to consider memory policy
>> in demotion path too, which are still under test, and will be posted
>> soon. And the basic idea is similar to this patch.
>
> For that you need to consult each vma and it's owning task(s) and that
> to me sounds like something to be done in folio_check_references.
> Relying on memcg to get a cpuset cgroup is really ugly and not really
> 100% correct. Memory controller might be disabled and then you do not
> have your association anymore.
>
I was looking at this recently and I am wondering whether we should worry about VM_SHARE
vmas.
ie, page_to_policy() can just reverse lookup just one VMA and fetch the policy right?
if it VM_SHARE it will be a shared policy we can find using vma->vm_file?
For non anonymous and anon vma not having any policy set it is owning task vma->vm_mm->owner task policy ?
We don't worry about multiple tasks that can be possibly sharing that page right?
> This all can get quite expensive so the primary question is, does the
> existing behavior generates any real issues or is this more of an
> correctness exercise? I mean it certainly is not great to demote to an
> incompatible numa node but are there any reasonable configurations when
> the demotion target node is explicitly excluded from memory
> policy/cpuset?
I guess vma policy is important. Applications want to make sure that they don't
have variable performance and they go to lengths to avoid that by using MEM_BIND.
So if they access the memory they always know access is satisfied from a specific
set of NUMA nodes. Swapin can cause performance impact but then all continued
access will be from a specific NUMA nodes. With slow memory demotion that is
not going to be the case. Large in-memory database applications are observed to
be sensitive to these access latencies.
-aneesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists