Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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;
task = NULL;
> 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;
> }
I think that you need to get a node mask instead. Even if
!node_isset(dnid, mpol->nodes), you may demote to other node in the node
mask.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
>
> 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
>> >
>>
