linux-kernel - [PATCH mm-unstable v1 4/4] mm/mglru: reclaim offlined memcgs harder

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: <20231208061407.2125867-4-yuzhao@google.com>
Date:   Thu,  7 Dec 2023 23:14:07 -0700
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        "T . J . Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 4/4] mm/mglru: reclaim offlined memcgs harder

In the effort to reduce zombie memcgs [1], it was discovered that the
memcg LRU doesn't apply enough pressure on offlined memcgs.
Specifically, instead of rotating them to the tail of the current
generation (MEMCG_LRU_TAIL) for a second attempt, it moves them to the
next generation (MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG) after the first attempt.

Not applying enough pressure on offlined memcgs can cause them to
build up, and this can be particularly harmful to memory-constrained
systems.

On Pixel 8 Pro, launching apps for 50 cycles:
                 Before  After  Change
  Zombie memcgs  45      35     -22%

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/CABdmKX2M6koq4Q0Cmp_-=wbP0Qa190HdEGGaHfxNS05gAkUtPA@mail.gmail.com/

Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Reported-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@...gle.com>
Tested-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@...gle.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
---
 include/linux/mmzone.h |  8 ++++----
 mm/vmscan.c            | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
index e3093ef9530f..2efd3be484fd 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
@@ -524,10 +524,10 @@ void lru_gen_look_around(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw);
  * 1. Exceeding the soft limit, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_HEAD;
  * 2. The first attempt to reclaim a memcg below low, which triggers
  *    MEMCG_LRU_TAIL;
- * 3. The first attempt to reclaim a memcg below reclaimable size threshold,
- *    which triggers MEMCG_LRU_TAIL;
- * 4. The second attempt to reclaim a memcg below reclaimable size threshold,
- *    which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
+ * 3. The first attempt to reclaim a memcg offlined or below reclaimable size
+ *    threshold, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_TAIL;
+ * 4. The second attempt to reclaim a memcg offlined or below reclaimable size
+ *    threshold, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
  * 5. Attempting to reclaim a memcg below min, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
  * 6. Finishing the aging on the eviction path, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
  * 7. Offlining a memcg, which triggers MEMCG_LRU_OLD.
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index cac38e9cac86..dad4b80b04cd 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -4626,7 +4626,12 @@ static bool should_run_aging(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long max_seq,
 	}
 
 	/* try to scrape all its memory if this memcg was deleted */
-	*nr_to_scan = mem_cgroup_online(memcg) ? (total >> sc->priority) : total;
+	if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg)) {
+		*nr_to_scan = total;
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	*nr_to_scan = total >> sc->priority;
 
 	/*
 	 * The aging tries to be lazy to reduce the overhead, while the eviction
@@ -4747,14 +4752,9 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
 	bool success;
 	unsigned long scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
 	unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
-	int seg = lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec);
 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
 	struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
 
-	/* see the comment on MEMCG_NR_GENS */
-	if (!lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc))
-		return seg != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL ? MEMCG_LRU_TAIL : MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
-
 	mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
 
 	if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
@@ -4762,7 +4762,7 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
 
 	if (mem_cgroup_below_low(NULL, memcg)) {
 		/* see the comment on MEMCG_NR_GENS */
-		if (seg != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL)
+		if (lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec) != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL)
 			return MEMCG_LRU_TAIL;
 
 		memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW);
@@ -4778,7 +4778,15 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
 
 	flush_reclaim_state(sc);
 
-	return success ? MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG : 0;
+	if (success && mem_cgroup_online(memcg))
+		return MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
+
+	if (!success && lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc))
+		return 0;
+
+	/* one retry if offlined or too small */
+	return lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec) != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL ?
+	       MEMCG_LRU_TAIL : MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
-- 
2.43.0.472.g3155946c3a-goog