Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] sock: Consider memcg pressure when raising sockmem
From: Paolo Abeni
Date: Tue May 23 2023 - 06:27:09 EST
On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 17:46 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> For now __sk_mem_raise_allocated() mainly considers global socket
> memory pressure and allows to raise if no global pressure observed,
> including the sockets whose memcgs are in pressure, which might
> result in longer memcg memstall.
>
> So take net-memcg's pressure into consideration when allocating
> socket memory to alleviate long tail latencies.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/core/sock.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 801df091e37a..b899e0b9feda 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -2976,22 +2976,31 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_wait_data);
> int __sk_mem_raise_allocated(struct sock *sk, int size, int amt, int kind)
> {
> bool memcg_charge = mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && sk->sk_memcg;
> + bool charged = true, pressured = false;
> struct proto *prot = sk->sk_prot;
> - bool charged = true;
> long allocated;
>
> sk_memory_allocated_add(sk, amt);
> allocated = sk_memory_allocated(sk);
> - if (memcg_charge &&
> - !(charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt,
> - gfp_memcg_charge())))
> - goto suppress_allocation;
> +
> + if (memcg_charge) {
> + charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt,
> + gfp_memcg_charge());
> + if (!charged)
> + goto suppress_allocation;
> + if (mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(sk->sk_memcg))
> + pressured = true;
> + }
>
> /* Under limit. */
> - if (allocated <= sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 0)) {
> + if (allocated <= sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 0))
> sk_leave_memory_pressure(sk);
> + else
> + pressured = true;
The above looks not correct to me.
allocated > sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 0)
does not mean the protocol has memory pressure. Such condition is
checked later with:
if (allocated > sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 1))
Here an allocation could fail even if memcg charge is successful and
the protocol is not under pressure, which in turn sounds quite (too
much?) conservative.
Cheers,
Paolo