linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: ratelimit stat flush from workingset shrinker

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231228174446.6jakusrp7272y3ze@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 17:44:46 +0000
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: ratelimit stat flush from workingset shrinker

On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 07:13:23AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:31 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of our internal workload regressed on newer upstream kernel and on
> > further investigation, it seems like the cause is the always synchronous
> > rstat flush in the count_shadow_nodes() added by the commit f82e6bf9bb9b
> > ("mm: memcg: use rstat for non-hierarchical stats"). On further
> > inspection it seems like we don't really need accurate stats in this
> > function as it was already approximating the amount of appropriate
> > shadow entried to keep for maintaining the refault information. Since
> 
> s/entried/entries
> 
> > there is already 2 sec periodic rstat flush, we don't need exact stats
> > here. Let's ratelimit the rstat flush in this code path.
> 
> Is the regression observed even with commit 7d7ef0a4686a ("mm: memcg:
> restore subtree stats flushing")? I think the answer is yes based on
> internal discussions, but this really surprises me.
> 

Yes, the regression was on latest mm-stable branch of Andrew's mm tree.

> Commit f82e6bf9bb9b removed the percpu loop in
> lruvec_page_state_local(), and added a flush call. With  7d7ef0a4686a,
> the flush call is only effective if there are pending updates in the
> cgroup subtree exceeding MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH * num_online_cpus(). IOW,
> we should only be doing work when actually needed, whereas before we
> used to have multiple percpu loops in count_shadow_nodes() regardless
> of pending updates.
> 
> It seems like the cgroup subtree is very active that we continuously
> need to flush in count_shadow_nodes()? If that's the case, do we still
> think it's okay not to flush when we know there are pending updates? I
> don't have enough background about the workingset heuristics to judge
> this.

Not all updates might be related to the stats being read here. Also the
read value is further divided by 8 and manipulated more in
do_shrink_slab(). So, I don't think we need less than 2 seconds accuracy
for these stats here.