On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:57:52AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > > > This all can get quite expensive so the primary question is, does the
> > > > existing behavior generates any real issues or is this more of an
> > > > correctness exercise? I mean it certainly is not great to demote to an
> > > > incompatible numa node but are there any reasonable configurations when
> > > > the demotion target node is explicitly excluded from memory
> > > > policy/cpuset?
> > >
> > > We haven't got customer report on this, but there are quite some customers
> > > use cpuset to bind some specific memory nodes to a docker (You've helped
> > > us solve a OOM issue in such cases), so I think it's practical to respect
> > > the cpuset semantics as much as we can.
> >
> > Yes, it is definitely better to respect cpusets and all local memory
> > policies. There is no dispute there. The thing is whether this is really
> > worth it. How often would cpusets (or policies in general) go actively
> > against demotion nodes (i.e. exclude those nodes from their allowes node
> > mask)?
> >
> > I can imagine workloads which wouldn't like to get their memory demoted
> > for some reason but wouldn't it be more practical to tell that
> > explicitly (e.g. via prctl) rather than configuring cpusets/memory
> > policies explicitly?
> >
> > > Your concern about the expensive cost makes sense! Some raw ideas are:
> > > * if the shrink_folio_list is called by kswapd, the folios come from
> > > the same per-memcg lruvec, so only one check is enough
> > > * if not from kswapd, like called form madvise or DAMON code, we can
> > > save a memcg cache, and if the next folio's memcg is same as the
> > > cache, we reuse its result. And due to the locality, the real
> > > check is rarely performed.
> >
> > memcg is not the expensive part of the thing. You need to get from page
> > -> all vmas::vm_policy -> mm -> task::mempolicy
>
> Yeah, on the same page with Michal. Figuring out mempolicy from page
> seems quite expensive and the correctness can't be guranteed since the
> mempolicy could be set per-thread and the mm->task depends on
> CONFIG_MEMCG so it doesn't work for !CONFIG_MEMCG.
Yes, you are right. Our "working" psudo code for mem policy looks like
what Michal mentioned, and it can't work for all cases, but try to
enforce it whenever possible:
static bool __check_mpol_demotion(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long addr, void *arg)
{
bool *skip_demotion = arg;
struct mempolicy *mpol;
int nid, dnid;
bool ret = true;
mpol = __get_vma_policy(vma, addr);
if (!mpol) {
struct task_struct *task;
if (vma->vm_mm)
task = vma->vm_mm->owner;
if (task) {
mpol = get_task_policy(task);
if (mpol)
mpol_get(mpol);
}
}
if (!mpol)
return ret;
if (mpol->mode != MPOL_BIND)
goto put_exit;
nid = folio_nid(folio);
dnid = next_demotion_node(nid);
if (!node_isset(dnid, mpol->nodes)) {
*skip_demotion = true;
ret = false;
}
put_exit:
mpol_put(mpol);
return ret;
}
static unsigned int shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,..)
{
...
bool skip_demotion = false;
struct rmap_walk_control rwc = {
.arg = &skip_demotion,
.rmap_one = __check_mpol_demotion,
};
/* memory policy check */
rmap_walk(folio, &rwc);
if (skip_demotion)
goto keep_locked;
}
And there seems to be no simple solution for getting the memory
policy from a page.
Thanks,
Feng
> >
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
> >
>
