Andrew, does this need to be picked up by stable branches?
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 7:15 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> During reclaim, mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() is used to determine
> the effective protection (emin and elow) values of a memcg. The
> protection of the reclaim target is ignored, but we cannot set their
> effective protection to 0 due to a limitation of the current
> implementation (see comment in mem_cgroup_protection()). Instead,
> we leave their effective protection values unchaged, and later ignore it
> in mem_cgroup_protection().
>
> However, mem_cgroup_protection() is called later in
> shrink_lruvec()->get_scan_count(), which is after the
> mem_cgroup_below_{min/low}() checks in shrink_node_memcgs(). As a
> result, the stale effective protection values of the target memcg may
> lead us to skip reclaiming from the target memcg entirely, before
> calling shrink_lruvec(). This can be even worse with recursive
> protection, where the stale target memcg protection can be higher than
> its standalone protection. See two examples below (a similar version of
> example (a) is added to test_memcontrol in a later patch).
>
> (a) A simple example with proactive reclaim is as follows. Consider the
> following hierarchy:
> ROOT
> |
> A
> |
> B (memory.min = 10M)
>
> Consider the following scenario:
> - B has memory.current = 10M.
> - The system undergoes global reclaim (or memcg reclaim in A).
> - In shrink_node_memcgs():
> - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() calculates the effective min (emin)
> of B as 10M.
> - mem_cgroup_below_min() returns true for B, we do not reclaim from B.
> - Now if we want to reclaim 5M from B using proactive reclaim
> (memory.reclaim), we should be able to, as the protection of the
> target memcg should be ignored.
> - In shrink_node_memcgs():
> - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() immediately returns for B without
> doing anything, as B is the target memcg, relying on
> mem_cgroup_protection() to ignore B's stale effective min (still 10M).
> - mem_cgroup_below_min() reads the stale effective min for B and we
> skip it instead of ignoring its protection as intended, as we never
> reach mem_cgroup_protection().
>
> (b) An more complex example with recursive protection is as follows.
> Consider the following hierarchy with memory_recursiveprot:
> ROOT
> |
> A (memory.min = 50M)
> |
> B (memory.min = 10M, memory.high = 40M)
>
> Consider the following scenario:
> - B has memory.current = 35M.
> - The system undergoes global reclaim (target memcg is NULL).
> - B will have an effective min of 50M (all of A's unclaimed protection).
> - B will not be reclaimed from.
> - Now allocate 10M more memory in B, pushing it above it's high limit.
> - The system undergoes memcg reclaim from B (target memcg is B).
> - Like example (a), we do nothing in mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(),
> then call mem_cgroup_below_min(), which will read the stale effective
> min for B (50M) and skip it. In this case, it's even worse because we
> are not just considering B's standalone protection (10M), but we are
> reading a much higher stale protection (50M) which will cause us to not
> reclaim from B at all.
>
> This is an artifact of commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple
> e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks") which made
> mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() only change the state without
> returning any value. Before that commit, we used to return
> MEMCG_PROT_NONE for the target memcg, which would cause us to skip the
> mem_cgroup_below_{min/low}() checks. After that commit we do not return
> anything and we end up checking the min & low effective protections for
> the target memcg, which are stale.
>
> Update mem_cgroup_supports_protection() to also check if we are
> reclaiming from the target, and rename it to mem_cgroup_unprotected()
> (now returns true if we should not protect the memcg, much simpler logic).
>
> Fixes: 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks")
> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
> mm/vmscan.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index e1644a24009c..d3c8203cab6c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -615,28 +615,32 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
>
> -static inline bool mem_cgroup_supports_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> /*
> * The root memcg doesn't account charges, and doesn't support
> - * protection.
> + * protection. The target memcg's protection is ignored, see
> + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() and mem_cgroup_protection()
> */
> - return !mem_cgroup_disabled() && !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg);
> -
> + return mem_cgroup_disabled() || mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg) ||
> + memcg == target;
> }
>
> -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> - if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg))
> + if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg))
> return false;
>
> return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow) >=
> page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
> }
>
> -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> - if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg))
> + if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg))
> return false;
>
> return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin) >=
> @@ -1209,12 +1213,19 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> {
> }
>
> -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> return false;
> }
>
> -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> return false;
> }
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 04d8b88e5216..79ef0fe67518 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -4486,7 +4486,7 @@ static bool age_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, unsigned
>
> mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
>
> - if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg))
> + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
> return false;
>
> need_aging = should_run_aging(lruvec, max_seq, min_seq, sc, swappiness, &nr_to_scan);
> @@ -5047,8 +5047,9 @@ static unsigned long get_nr_to_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *
> DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec);
> DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec);
>
> - if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg) ||
> - (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg) && !sc->memcg_low_reclaim))
> + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(sc->target_mem_cgroup, memcg) ||
> + (mem_cgroup_below_low(sc->target_mem_cgroup, memcg) &&
> + !sc->memcg_low_reclaim))
> return 0;
>
> *need_aging = should_run_aging(lruvec, max_seq, min_seq, sc, can_swap, &nr_to_scan);
> @@ -6048,13 +6049,13 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>
> mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg);
>
> - if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) {
> + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(target_memcg, memcg)) {
> /*
> * Hard protection.
> * If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM.
> */
> continue;
> - } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg)) {
> + } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(target_memcg, memcg)) {
> /*
> * Soft protection.
> * Respect the protection only as long as
> --
> 2.39.0.rc0.267.gcb52ba06e7-goog
>
