On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:36 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon 04-04-22 11:32:28, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 04-04-22 17:23:43, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:07 PM Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 4:51 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 04-04-22 10:33:58, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > One thing that I don't understand in this approach is: why memory.low > > > > > > > should depend on the system's memory pressure. It seems you want to > > > > > > > allow a process to allocate more when memory pressure is high. That is > > > > > > > very counter-intuitive to me. Could you please explain the underlying > > > > > > > logic of why this is the right thing to do, without going into > > > > > > > technical details? > > > > > > What I want to achieve is make memory.low be positive correlation with > > > > > > timing and negative to memory pressure, which means the protected > > > > > > memcg should lower its protection(via lower memcg.low) for helping > > > > > > system's memory pressure when it's high. > > > > > > > > > > I have to say this is still very confusing to me. The low limit is a > > > > > protection against external (e.g. global) memory pressure. Decreasing > > > > > the protection based on the external pressure sounds like it goes right > > > > > against the purpose of the knob. I can see reasons to update protection > > > > > based on refaults or other metrics from the userspace but I still do not > > > > > see how this is a good auto-magic tuning done by the kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > The concept behind is memcg's > > > > > > fault back of dropped memory is less important than system's latency > > > > > > on high memory pressure. > > > > > > > > > > Can you give some specific examples? > > > > For both of the above two comments, please refer to the latest test > > > > result in Patchv2 I have sent. I prefer to name my change as focus > > > > transfer under pressure as protected memcg is the focus when system's > > > > memory pressure is low which will reclaim from root, this is not > > > > against current design. However, when global memory pressure is high, > > > > then the focus has to be changed to the whole system, because it > > > > doesn't make sense to let the protected memcg out of everybody, it > > > > can't > > > > do anything when the system is trapped in the kernel with reclaiming work. > > > Does it make more sense if I describe the change as memcg will be > > > protect long as system pressure is under the threshold(partially > > > coherent with current design) and will sacrifice the memcg if pressure > > > is over the threshold(added change) > > > > No, not really. For one it is still really unclear why there should be any > > difference in the semantic between global and external memory pressure > > in general. The low limit is always a protection from the external > > pressure. And what should be the actual threshold? Amount of the reclaim > > performed, effectivness of the reclaim or what? > > Btw. you might want to have a look at http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220331084151.2600229-1-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx > where a new interface to allow pro-active memory reclaim is discussed. > I think that this might turn out to be a better fit then an automagic > kernel manipulation with a low limit. It will require a user agent to > drive the reclaim though. Ok. But AFAIK, there are some of this kinds of method working as out of tree code now. such as PPR in android etc. As I have replied to Suren, there is always latency issue on this scheme as the agent should poll the event/read current status/write to launch the action. This patch is aiming at solve part of these issues. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
