On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:51:40AM +0000, Zhang, Cathy wrote:
>
>
[...]
> >
> > Thanks a lot. This tells us that one or both of following scenarios are
> > happening:
> >
> > 1. In the softirq recv path, the kernel is processing packets from multiple
> > memcgs.
> >
> > 2. The process running on the CPU belongs to memcg which is different from
> > the memcgs whose packets are being received on that CPU.
>
> Thanks for sharing the points, Shakeel! Is there any trace records you want to
> collect?
>
Can you please try the following patch and see if there is any
improvement?
>From 48eb23c8cbb5d6c6086299c8a5ae4b3485c79a8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 17:04:35 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] No batch charge in irq context
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index d31fb1e2cb33..f1453a140fc8 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2652,7 +2652,8 @@ void mem_cgroup_handle_over_high(void)
static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
unsigned int nr_pages)
{
- unsigned int batch = max(MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH, nr_pages);
+ unsigned int batch = in_task() ?
+ max(MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH, nr_pages) : nr_pages;
int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
struct mem_cgroup *mem_over_limit;
struct page_counter *counter;
--
2.40.1.606.ga4b1b128d6-goog
