On 11/17/22 9:12 PM, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> On 11/17/22 8:42 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Hi Aneesh,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:24:13PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> Currently, we don't pause in balance_dirty_pages with cgroup v1 when we
>>> have task dirtying too many pages w.r.t to memory limit in the memcg.
>>> This is because with cgroup v1 all the limits are checked against global
>>> available resources. So on a system with a large amount of memory, a
>>> cgroup with a smaller limit can easily hit OOM if the task within the
>>> cgroup continuously dirty pages.
>>
>> Page reclaim has special writeback throttling for cgroup1, see the
>> folio_wait_writeback() in shrink_folio_list(). It's not as smooth as
>> proper dirty throttling, but it should prevent OOMs.
>>
>> Is this not working anymore?
>
> The test is a simple dd test on on a 256GB system.
>
> root@lp2:/sys/fs/cgroup/memory# mkdir test
> root@lp2:/sys/fs/cgroup/memory# cd test/
> root@lp2:/sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test# echo 120M > memory.limit_in_bytes
> root@lp2:/sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test# echo $$ > tasks
> root@lp2:/sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test# dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/kvaneesh/test bs=1M
> Killed
>
>
> Will it hit the folio_wait_writeback, because it is sequential i/o and none of the folio
> we are writing will be in writeback?
Other way to look at this is, if the writeback is never started via balance_dirty_pages,
will we be finding folios in shrink_folio_list that is in writeback?
>
>>
>>> Shouldn't we throttle the task based on the memcg limits in this case?
>>> commit 9badce000e2c ("cgroup, writeback: don't enable cgroup writeback
>>> on traditional hierarchies") indicates we run into issues with enabling
>>> cgroup writeback with v1. But we still can keep the global writeback
>>> domain, but check the throtling needs against memcg limits in
>>> balance_dirty_pages()?
>>
>> Deciding when to throttle is only one side of the coin, though.
>>
>> The other side is selective flushing in the IO context of whoever
>> generated the dirty data, and matching the rate of dirtying to the
>> rate of writeback. This isn't really possible in cgroup1, as the
>> domains for memory and IO control could be disjunct.
>>
>> For example, if a fast-IO cgroup shares memory with a slow-IO cgroup,
>> what's the IO context for flushing the shared dirty data? What's the
>> throttling rate you apply to dirtiers?
>
> I am not using I/O controller at all. Only cpu and memory controllers are
> used and what I am observing is depending on the system memory size, the container
> with same memory limits will hit OOM on some machine and not on others.
>
> One of the challenge with the above test is, we are not able to reclaim via
> shrink_folio_list() because these are dirty file lru pages and we take the
> below code path
>
> if (folio_is_file_lru(folio) &&
> (!current_is_kswapd() ||
> !folio_test_reclaim(folio) ||
> !test_bit(PGDAT_DIRTY, &pgdat->flags))) {
> ......
> goto activate_locked;
> }
>
>
>
> -aneesh
