On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:03 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 13-12-22 14:30:40, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 02:30:57PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > [...] > > > After these discussion, I think the solution maybe use different > > > interfaces for "proactive demote" and "proactive reclaim". That is, > > > reconsider "memory.demote". In this way, we will always uncharge the > > > cgroup for "memory.reclaim". This avoid the possible confusion there. > > > And, because demotion is considered aging, we don't need to disable > > > demotion for "memory.reclaim", just don't count it. > > > > Hm, so in summary: > > > > 1) memory.reclaim would demote and reclaim like today, but it would > > change to only count reclaimed pages against the goal. > > > > 2) memory.demote would only demote. > > If the above 2 points are agreeable then yes, this sounds good to me and does address our use case. > > a) What if the demotion targets are full? Would it reclaim or fail? > > Wei will chime in if he disagrees, but I think we _require_ that it fails, not falls back to reclaim. The interface is asking for demotion, and is called memory.demote. For such an interface to fall back to reclaim would be very confusing to userspace and may trigger reclaim on a high priority job that we want to shield from proactive reclaim. > > 3) Would memory.reclaim and memory.demote still need nodemasks? memory.demote will need a nodemask, for sure. Today the nodemask would be useful if there is a specific node in the top tier that is overloaded and we want to reduce the pressure by demoting. In the future there will be N tiers and the nodemask says which tier to demote from. I don't think memory.reclaim would need a nodemask anymore? At least I no longer see the use for it for us. > > Would > > they return -EINVAL if a) memory.reclaim gets passed only toptier > > nodes or b) memory.demote gets passed any lasttier nodes? > Honestly it would be great if memory.reclaim can force reclaim from a top tier nodes. It breaks the aginig pipeline, yes, but if the user is specifically asking for that because they decided in their usecase it's a good idea then the kernel should comply IMO. Not a strict requirement for us. Wei will chime in if he disagrees. memory.demote returning -EINVAL for lasttier nodes makes sense to me. > I would also add > 4) Do we want to allow to control the demotion path (e.g. which node to > demote from and to) and how to achieve that? We care deeply about specifying which node to demote _from_. That would be some node that is approaching pressure and we're looking for proactive saving from. So far I haven't seen any reason to control which nodes to demote _to_. The kernel deciding that based on the aging pipeline and the node distances sounds good to me. Obviously someone else may find that useful. > 5) Is the demotion api restricted to multi-tier systems or any numa > configuration allowed as well? > demotion will of course not work on single tiered systems. The interface may return some failure on such systems or not be available at all. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
