Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] Add swappiness argument to memory.reclaim

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:25 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> This series has been in the mm-unstable for several months. Are there
> any remaining concerns here otherwise can we please put this in the
> mm-stable branch to be merged in the next Linux release?

+Yu Zhao

I don't think Yu Zhao was correctly CC'd on this :)

>
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 08:48:35AM GMT, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> > Changes since V5:
> >   * Made the scan_control behavior limited to proactive reclaim explicitly
> >   * created sc_swappiness helper to reduce chance of mis-use
> >
> > Changes since V4:
> >   * Fixed some initialization bugs by reverting back to a pointer for swappiness
> >   * Added some more caveats to the behavior of swappiness in documentation
> >
> > Changes since V3:
> >   * Added #define for MIN_SWAPPINESS and MAX_SWAPPINESS
> >   * Added explicit calls to mem_cgroup_swappiness
> >
> > Changes since V2:
> >   * No functional change
> >   * Used int consistently rather than a pointer
> >
> > Changes since V1:
> >   * Added documentation
> >
> > This patch proposes augmenting the memory.reclaim interface with a
> > swappiness=<val> argument that overrides the swappiness value for that instance
> > of proactive reclaim.
> >
> > Userspace proactive reclaimers use the memory.reclaim interface to trigger
> > reclaim. The memory.reclaim interface does not allow for any way to effect the
> > balance of file vs anon during proactive reclaim. The only approach is to adjust
> > the vm.swappiness setting. However, there are a few reasons we look to control
> > the balance of file vs anon during proactive reclaim, separately from reactive
> > reclaim:
> >
> > * Swapout should be limited to manage SSD write endurance. In near-OOM
> >   situations we are fine with lots of swap-out to avoid OOMs. As these are
> >   typically rare events, they have relatively little impact on write endurance.
> >   However, proactive reclaim runs continuously and so its impact on SSD write
> >   endurance is more significant. Therefore it is desireable to control swap-out
> >   for proactive reclaim separately from reactive reclaim
> >
> > * Some userspace OOM killers like systemd-oomd[1] support OOM killing on swap
> >   exhaustion. This makes sense if the swap exhaustion is triggered due to
> >   reactive reclaim but less so if it is triggered due to proactive reclaim (e.g.
> >   one could see OOMs when free memory is ample but anon is just particularly
> >   cold). Therefore, it's desireable to have proactive reclaim reduce or stop
> >   swap-out before the threshold at which OOM killing occurs.
> >
> > In the case of Meta's Senpai proactive reclaimer, we adjust vm.swappiness before
> > writes to memory.reclaim[2]. This has been in production for nearly two years
> > and has addressed our needs to control proactive vs reactive reclaim behavior
> > but is still not ideal for a number of reasons:
> >
> > * vm.swappiness is a global setting, adjusting it can race/interfere with other
> >   system administration that wishes to control vm.swappiness. In our case, we
> >   need to disable Senpai before adjusting vm.swappiness.
> >
> > * vm.swappiness is stateful - so a crash or restart of Senpai can leave a
> >   misconfigured setting. This requires some additional management to record the
> >   "desired" setting and ensure Senpai always adjusts to it.
> >
> > With this patch, we avoid these downsides of adjusting vm.swappiness globally.
> >
> > Previously, this exact interface addition was proposed by Yosry[3]. In response,
> > Roman proposed instead an interface to specify precise file/anon/slab reclaim
> > amounts[4]. More recently Huan also proposed this as well[5] and others
> > similarly questioned if this was the proper interface.
> >
> > Previous proposals sought to use this to allow proactive reclaimers to
> > effectively perform a custom reclaim algorithm by issuing proactive reclaim with
> > different settings to control file vs anon reclaim (e.g. to only reclaim anon
> > from some applications). Responses argued that adjusting swappiness is a poor
> > interface for custom reclaim.
> >
> > In contrast, I argue in favor of a swappiness setting not as a way to implement
> > custom reclaim algorithms but rather to bias the balance of anon vs file due to
> > differences of proactive vs reactive reclaim. In this context, swappiness is the
> > existing interface for controlling this balance and this patch simply allows for
> > it to be configured differently for proactive vs reactive reclaim.
> >
> > Specifying explicit amounts of anon vs file pages to reclaim feels inappropriate
> > for this prupose. Proactive reclaimers are un-aware of the relative age of file
> > vs anon for a cgroup which makes it difficult to manage proactive reclaim of
> > different memory pools. A proactive reclaimer would need some amount of anon
> > reclaim attempts separate from the amount of file reclaim attempts which seems
> > brittle given that it's difficult to observe the impact.
> >
> > [1]https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/systemd-oomd.service.html
> > [2]https://github.com/facebookincubator/oomd/blob/main/src/oomd/plugins/Senpai.cpp#L585-L598
> > [3]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAJD7tkbDpyoODveCsnaqBBMZEkDvshXJmNdbk51yKSNgD7aGdg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > [4]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YoPHtHXzpK51F%2F1Z@carbon/
> > [5]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231108065818.19932-1-link@xxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Dan Schatzberg (2):
> >   mm: add defines for min/max swappiness
> >   mm: add swapiness= arg to memory.reclaim
> >
> >  Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 18 +++++---
> >  include/linux/swap.h                    |  5 ++-
> >  mm/memcontrol.c                         | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  mm/vmscan.c                             | 39 ++++++++++++-----
> >  4 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.3
> >