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

[Shakeel Butt]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:42 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:12:22AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu 09-07-20 12:47:18, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > Memory.high limit is implemented in a way such that the kernel
> > > > penalizes all threads which are allocating a memory over the limit.
> > > > Forcing all threads into the synchronous reclaim and adding some
> > > > artificial delays allows to slow down the memory consumption and
> > > > potentially give some time for userspace oom handlers/resource control
> > > > agents to react.
> > > >
> > > > It works nicely if the memory usage is hitting the limit from below,
> > > > however it works sub-optimal if a user adjusts memory.high to a value
> > > > way below the current memory usage. It basically forces all workload
> > > > threads (doing any memory allocations) into the synchronous reclaim
> > > > and sleep. This makes the workload completely unresponsive for
> > > > a long period of time and can also lead to a system-wide contention on
> > > > lru locks. It can happen even if the workload is not actually tight on
> > > > memory and has, for example, a ton of cold pagecache.
> > > >
> > > > In the current implementation writing to memory.high causes an atomic
> > > > update of page counter's high value followed by an attempt to reclaim
> > > > enough memory to fit into the new limit. To fix the problem described
> > > > above, all we need is to change the order of execution: try to push
> > > > the memory usage under the limit first, and only then set the new
> > > > high limit.
> > >
> > > Shakeel would this help with your pro-active reclaim usecase? It would
> > > require to reset the high limit right after the reclaim returns which is
> > > quite ugly but it would at least not require a completely new interface.
> > > You would simply do
> > >         high = current - to_reclaim
> > >         echo $high > memory.high
> > >         echo infinity > memory.high # To prevent direct reclaim
> > >                                     # allocation stalls
> > >
> >
> > This will reduce the chance of stalls but the interface is still
> > non-delegatable i.e. applications can not change their own memory.high
> > for the use-cases like application controlled proactive reclaim and
> > uswapd.
>
> Can you, please, elaborate a bit more on this? I didn't understand
> why.
>

Sure. Do we want memory.high a CFTYPE_NS_DELEGATABLE type file? I
don't think so otherwise any job on a system can change their
memory.high and can adversely impact the isolation and memory
scheduling of the system.

Next we have to agree that there are valid use-cases to allow
applications to reclaim from their cgroups and I think uswapd and
proactive reclaim are valid use-cases. Let's suppose memory.high is
the only way to trigger reclaim but the application can not write to
their top level memory.high, so, it has to create a dummy cgroup of
which it has write access to memory.high and has to move itself to
that dummy cgroup to use memory.high to trigger reclaim for
uswapd/proactive-reclaim.