linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] [mm-unstable] mm: Fix memcg reclaim on memory tiered systems

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: <87lenm1soh.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 05 Dec 2022 10:38:06 +0800
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, weixugc@...gle.com,
        fvdl@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] [mm-unstable] mm: Fix memcg reclaim on memory tiered
 systems

Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com> writes:

> commit 3f1509c57b1b ("Revert "mm/vmscan: never demote for memcg
> reclaim"") enabled demotion in memcg reclaim, which is the right thing
> to do, however, I suspect it introduced a regression in the behavior of
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages().
>
> The callers of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() expect it to attempt to
> reclaim - not demote - nr_pages from the cgroup. I.e. the memory usage
> of the cgroup should reduce by nr_pages. The callers expect
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() to also return the number of pages
> reclaimed, not demoted.
>
> However, what try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() actually does is it
> unconditionally counts demoted pages as reclaimed pages. So in practice
> when it is called it will often demote nr_pages and return the number of
> demoted pages to the caller. Demoted pages don't lower the memcg usage,
> and so I think try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() is not actually doing what
> the callers want it to do.
>
> I suspect various things work suboptimally on memory systems or don't
> work at all due to this:
>
> - memory.high enforcement likely doesn't work (it just demotes nr_pages
>   instead of lowering the memcg usage by nr_pages).
> - try_charge_memcg() will keep retrying the charge while
>   try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() is just demoting pages and not actually
>   making any room for the charge.
> - memory.reclaim has a wonky interface. It advertises to the user it
>   reclaims the provided amount but it will actually demote that amount.
>
> There may be more effects to this issue.
>
> To fix these issues I propose shrink_folio_list() to only count pages
> demoted from inside of sc->nodemask to outside of sc->nodemask as
> 'reclaimed'.
>
> For callers such as reclaim_high() or try_charge_memcg() that set
> sc->nodemask to NULL, try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() will try to
> actually reclaim nr_pages and return the number of pages reclaimed. No
> demoted pages would count towards the nr_pages requirement.
>
> For callers such as memory_reclaim() that set sc->nodemask,
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() will free nr_pages from that nodemask
> with either reclaim or demotion.

Have you checked all callers?  For example, IIUC, in
reclaim_clean_pages_from_list(), although sc.nodemask == NULL, the
demoted pages should be counted as reclaimed.  How about count both
"demoted" and "reclaimed" in struct scan_control, and let callers to
determine how to use the number?

> Tested this change using memory.reclaim interface. With this change,
>
> 	echo "1m" > memory.reclaim
>
> Will cause freeing of 1m of memory from the cgroup regardless of the
> demotions happening inside.
>
> 	echo "1m nodes=0" > memory.reclaim

Have you tested these tests in the original kernel?  If so, whether does
the issue you suspected above occurs during testing?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> Will cause freeing of 1m of node 0 by demotion if a demotion target is
> available, and by reclaim if no demotion target is available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
>
> ---
>
> This is developed on top of mm-unstable largely because I need the
> memory.reclaim nodes= arg to test it properly.
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 2b42ac9ad755..8f6e993b870d 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1653,6 +1653,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
>  	LIST_HEAD(free_folios);
>  	LIST_HEAD(demote_folios);
>  	unsigned int nr_reclaimed = 0;
> +	unsigned int nr_demoted = 0;
>  	unsigned int pgactivate = 0;
>  	bool do_demote_pass;
>  	struct swap_iocb *plug = NULL;
> @@ -2085,7 +2086,17 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
>  	/* 'folio_list' is always empty here */
>
>  	/* Migrate folios selected for demotion */
> -	nr_reclaimed += demote_folio_list(&demote_folios, pgdat);
> +	nr_demoted = demote_folio_list(&demote_folios, pgdat);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Only count demoted folios as reclaimed if we demoted them from
> +	 * inside of the nodemask to outside of the nodemask, hence reclaiming
> +	 * pages in the nodemask.
> +	 */
> +	if (sc->nodemask && node_isset(pgdat->node_id, *sc->nodemask) &&
> +	    !node_isset(next_demotion_node(pgdat->node_id), *sc->nodemask))
> +		nr_reclaimed += nr_demoted;
> +
>  	/* Folios that could not be demoted are still in @demote_folios */
>  	if (!list_empty(&demote_folios)) {
>  		/* Folios which weren't demoted go back on @folio_list */
> --
> 2.39.0.rc0.267.gcb52ba06e7-goog