Re: [PACTH v2 0/3] Implement /proc/<pid>/totmaps

[Sonny Rao]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri 19-08-16 11:26:34, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:01:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Thu 18-08-16 10:47:57, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > > On Wed 17-08-16 11:57:56, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > >> 2) User space OOM handling -- we'd rather do a more graceful shutdown
>> > > >> than let the kernel's OOM killer activate and need to gather this
>> > > >> information and we'd like to be able to get this information to make
>> > > >> the decision much faster than 400ms
>> > > >
>> > > > Global OOM handling in userspace is really dubious if you ask me. I
>> > > > understand you want something better than SIGKILL and in fact this is
>> > > > already possible with memory cgroup controller (btw. memcg will give
>> > > > you a cheap access to rss, amount of shared, swapped out memory as
>> > > > well). Anyway if you are getting close to the OOM your system will most
>> > > > probably be really busy and chances are that also reading your new file
>> > > > will take much more time. I am also not quite sure how is pss useful for
>> > > > oom decisions.
>> > >
>> > > I mentioned it before, but based on experience RSS just isn't good
>> > > enough -- there's too much sharing going on in our use case to make
>> > > the correct decision based on RSS.  If RSS were good enough, simply
>> > > put, this patch wouldn't exist.
>> >
>> > But that doesn't answer my question, I am afraid. So how exactly do you
>> > use pss for oom decisions?
>>
>> My case is not for OOM decision but I agree it would be great if we can get
>> *fast* smap summary information.
>>
>> PSS is really great tool to figure out how processes consume memory
>> more exactly rather than RSS. We have been used it for monitoring
>> of memory for per-process. Although it is not used for OOM decision,
>> it would be great if it is speed up because we don't want to spend
>> many CPU time for just monitoring.
>>
>> For our usecase, we don't need AnonHugePages, ShmemPmdMapped, Shared_Hugetlb,
>> Private_Hugetlb, KernelPageSize, MMUPageSize because we never enable THP and
>> hugetlb. Additionally, Locked can be known via vma flags so we don't need it,
>> either. Even, we don't need address range for just monitoring when we don't
>> investigate in detail.
>>
>> Although they are not severe overhead, why does it emit the useless
>> information? Even bloat day by day. :( With that, userspace tools should
>> spend more time to parse which is pointless.
>
> So far it doesn't really seem that the parsing is the biggest problem.
> The major cycles killer is the output formatting and that doesn't sound
> like a problem we are not able to address. And I would even argue that
> we want to address it in a generic way as much as possible.
>
>> Having said that, I'm not fan of creating new stat knob for that, either.
>> How about appending summary information in the end of smap?
>> So, monitoring users can just open the file and lseek to the (end - 1) and
>> read the summary only.
>
> That might confuse existing parsers. Besides that we already have
> /proc/<pid>/statm which gives cumulative numbers already. I am not sure
> how often it is used and whether the pte walk is too expensive for
> existing users but that should be explored and evaluated before a new
> file is created.
>
> The /proc became a dump of everything people found interesting just
> because we were to easy to allow those additions. Do not repeat those
> mistakes, please!

Another thing I noticed was that we lock down smaps on Chromium OS.  I
think this is to avoid exposing more information than necessary via
proc.  The totmaps file gives us just the information we need and
nothing else.   I certainly don't think we need a proc file for this
use case -- do you think a new system call is better or something
else?

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs