Re: [RFC 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim

[Roman Gushchin]

Hi, Michal!

As you can remember, I've proposed to introduce low limits about a year ago.

We had a small discussion at that time: http://marc.info/?t=136195226600004 .

Since that time we intensively use low limits in our production
(on thousands of machines). So, I'm very interested to merge this
functionality into upstream.

In my experience, low limits also require some changes in memcg page accounting
policy. For instance, an application in protected cgroup should have a guarantee
that it's filecache belongs to it's cgroup and is protected by low limit
therefore. If the filecache was created by another application in other cgroup,
it can be not so. I've solved this problem by implementing optional page
reaccouting on pagefaults and read/writes.

I can prepare my current version of patchset, if someone is interested.

Regards,
Roman

On 11.12.2013 18:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> previous discussions have shown that soft limits cannot be reformed
> (http://lwn.net/Articles/555249/). This series introduces an alternative
> approach to protecting memory allocated to processes executing within
> a memory cgroup controller. It is based on a new tunable that was
> discussed with Johannes and Tejun held during the last kernel summit.
>
> This patchset introduces such low limit that is functionally similar to a
> minimum guarantee. Memcgs which are under their lowlimit are not considered
> eligible for the reclaim (both global and hardlimit). The default value of
> the limit is 0 so all groups are eligible by default and an interested
> party has to explicitly set the limit.
>
> The primary use case is to protect an amount of memory allocated to a
> workload without it being reclaimed by an unrelated activity. In some
> cases this requirement can be fulfilled by mlock but it is not suitable
> for many loads and generally requires application awareness. Such
> application awareness can be complex. It effectively forbids the
> use of memory overcommit as the application must explicitly manage
> memory residency.
> With low limits, such workloads can be placed in a memcg with a low
> limit that protects the estimated working set.
>
> Another use case might be unreclaimable groups. Some loads might be so
> sensitive to reclaim that it is better to kill and start it again (or
> since checkpoint) rather than trash. This would be trivial with low
> limit set to unlimited and the OOM killer will handle the situation as
> required (e.g. kill and restart).
>
> The hierarchical behavior of the lowlimit is described in the first
> patch. It is followed by a direct reclaim fix which is necessary to
> handle situation when a no group is eligible because all groups are
> below low limit. This is not a big deal for hardlimit reclaim because
> we simply retry the reclaim few times and then trigger memcg OOM killer
> path. It would blow up in the global case when we would loop without
> doing any progress or trigger OOM killer. I would consider configuration
> leading to this state invalid but we should handle that gracefully.
>
> The third patch finally allows setting the lowlimit.
>
> The last patch tries expedites OOM if it is clear that no group is
> eligible for reclaim. It basically breaks out of loops in the direct
> reclaim and lets kswapd sleep because it wouldn't do any progress anyway.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Short log says:
> Michal Hocko (4):
>        memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim
>        mm, memcg: allow OOM if no memcg is eligible during direct reclaim
>        memcg: Allow setting low_limit
>        mm, memcg: expedite OOM if no memcg is reclaimable
>
> And a diffstat
>   include/linux/memcontrol.h  | 14 +++++++++++
>   include/linux/res_counter.h | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   kernel/res_counter.c        |  2 ++
>   mm/memcontrol.c             | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   mm/vmscan.c                 | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   5 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/