Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: avoid workload stalls when lowering memory.high

[Johannes Weiner]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:32AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:39 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The way we do this right now is having the reclaimer daemon in a
> > dedicated top-level cgroup with memory.min protection.
> >
> > This works well because we have a comprehensive cgroup setup anyway
> > and need to protect this daemon (it's oomd - the proactive reclaimer,
> > senpai, is a plugin) for other reasons as well. But it's probably a
> > royal pain to use if you don't have all of that infrastructure.
> >
> > One possible idea to make this simpler would be to have a limit knob
> > that has a psi/pressure blowout valve. This way you could specify your
> > tolerances for paging and what constitutes "cold" memory, and the
> > limit unsets itself when pressure moves into harmful territory. This
> > would make it safe to use when the reclaimer becomes unresponsive or
> > dies altogether, which makes it safe to use from within the
> > cgroup. And being separate from max and high means we can delegate it.
> 
> I like this idea and agree with having a separate interface from max
> and high. Though why do we want to think of this interface as a limit
> interface. Are there additional benefits or use-cases which can
> benefit from this semantic?

I'm not saying we have to.

But one benefit of having a limit rather than a reclaim command knob
is that you can prevent cache-polluting scans through file data from
unnecessarily exploding the memory footprint of the cgroup.

It may be useful to compile a list of applications and goals for such
a knob, i.e. the reasons we want to do proactive reclaim in the first
place.