linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: memcg: introduce new event to trace shrink

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, 27 Nov 2023 13:50:22 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@...utedevices.com>
Cc:     rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        muchun.song@...ux.dev, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        kernel@...rdevices.ru, rockosov@...il.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: memcg: introduce new event to trace
 shrink_memcg

On Mon 27-11-23 14:36:44, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:33:49AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 23-11-23 22:39:37, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> > > The shrink_memcg flow plays a crucial role in memcg reclamation.
> > > Currently, it is not possible to trace this point from non-direct
> > > reclaim paths. However, direct reclaim has its own tracepoint, so there
> > > is no issue there. In certain cases, when debugging memcg pressure,
> > > developers may need to identify all potential requests for memcg
> > > reclamation including kswapd(). The patchset introduces the tracepoints
> > > mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_{begin|end}() to address this problem.
> > > 
> > > Example of output in the kswapd context (non-direct reclaim):
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356378: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356396: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=0 memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356420: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356454: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=1 memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356479: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356506: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=4 memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356525: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356593: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=11 memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356614: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356738: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=25 memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.356790: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_begin: order=0 gfp_flags=GFP_KERNEL memcg=16
> > >     kswapd0-39      [001] .....   240.357125: mm_vmscan_memcg_shrink_end: nr_reclaimed=53 memcg=16
> > 
> > In the previous version I have asked why do we need this specific
> > tracepoint when we already do have trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_{in}active
> > which already give you a very good insight. That includes the number of
> > reclaimed pages but also more. I do see that we do not include memcg id
> > of the reclaimed LRU, but that shouldn't be a big problem to add, no?
> 
> >From my point of view, memcg reclaim includes two points: LRU shrink and
> slab shrink, as mentioned in the vmscan.c file.
> 
> 
> static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> ...
> 		reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
> 		scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> 
> 		shrink_lruvec(lruvec, sc);
> 
> 		shrink_slab(sc->gfp_mask, pgdat->node_id, memcg,
> 			    sc->priority);
> ...
> 
> So, both of these operations are important for understanding whether
> memcg reclaiming was successful or not, as well as its effectiveness. I
> believe it would be beneficial to summarize them, which is why I have
> created new tracepoints.

This sounds like nice to have rather than must. Put it differently. If
you make existing reclaim trace points memcg aware (print memcg id) then
what prevents you from making analysis you need?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs