Hey Johannes,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 7:04 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 05:46:13PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > Currently, memcg uses rstat to maintain hierarchical stats. The rstat
> > framework keeps track of which cgroups have updates on which cpus.
> >
> > For non-hierarchical stats, as memcg moved to rstat, they are no longer
> > readily available as counters. Instead, the percpu counters for a given
> > stat need to be summed to get the non-hierarchical stat value. This
> > causes a performance regression when reading non-hierarchical stats on
> > kernels where memcg moved to using rstat. This is especially visible
> > when reading memory.stat on cgroup v1. There are also some code paths
> > internal to the kernel that read such non-hierarchical stats.
>
> It's actually not an rstat regression. It's always been this costly.
>
> Quick history:
Thanks for the context.
>
> We used to maintain *all* stats in per-cpu counters at the local
> level. memory.stat reads would have to iterate and aggregate the
> entire subtree every time. This was obviously very costly, so we added
> batched upward propagation during stat updates to simplify reads:
>
> commit 42a300353577ccc17ecc627b8570a89fa1678bec
> Author: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue May 14 15:47:12 2019 -0700
>
> mm: memcontrol: fix recursive statistics correctness & scalabilty
>
> However, that caused a regression in the stat write path, as the
> upward propagation would bottleneck on the cachelines in the shared
> parents. The fix for *that* re-introduced the per-cpu loops in the
> local stat reads:
>
> commit 815744d75152078cde5391fc1e3c2d4424323fb6
> Author: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Jun 13 15:55:46 2019 -0700
>
> mm: memcontrol: don't batch updates of local VM stats and events
>
> So I wouldn't say it's a regression from rstat. Except for that short
> period between the two commits above, the read side for local stats
> was always expensive.
I was comparing from an 4.15 kernel, so I assumed the major change was
from rstat, but that was not accurate. Thanks for the history.
However, in that 4.15 kernel the local (non-hierarchical) stats were
readily available without iterating percpu counters. There is a
regression that was introduced somewhere.
Looking at the history you described, it seems like up until
815744d75152 we used to maintain "local" (aka non-hierarchical)
counters, so reading local stats was reading one counter, and starting
815744d75152 we started having to loop percpu counters for that.
So it is not a regression of rstat, but seemingly it is a regression
of 815744d75152. Is my understanding incorrect?
>
> rstat promises a shot at finally fixing it, with less risk to the
> write path.
>
> > It is inefficient to iterate and sum counters in all cpus when the rstat
> > framework knows exactly when a percpu counter has an update. Instead,
> > maintain cpu-aggregated non-hierarchical counters for each stat. During
> > an rstat flush, keep those updated as well. When reading
> > non-hierarchical stats, we no longer need to iterate cpus, we just need
> > to read the maintainer counters, similar to hierarchical stats.
> >
> > A caveat is that we now a stats flush before reading
> > local/non-hierarchical stats through {memcg/lruvec}_page_state_local()
> > or memcg_events_local(), where we previously only needed a flush to
> > read hierarchical stats. Most contexts reading non-hierarchical stats
> > are already doing a flush, add a flush to the only missing context in
> > count_shadow_nodes().
> >
> > With this patch, reading memory.stat from 1000 memcgs is 3x faster on a
> > machine with 256 cpus on cgroup v1:
> > # for i in $(seq 1000); do mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cg$i; done
> > # time cat /dev/cgroup/memory/cg*/memory.stat > /dev/null
> > real 0m0.125s
> > user 0m0.005s
> > sys 0m0.120s
> >
> > After:
> > real 0m0.032s
> > user 0m0.005s
> > sys 0m0.027s
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks! I will reformulate the commit log after we agree on the history.
>
> But I want to be clear: this isn't a regression fix. It's a new
> performance optimization for the deprecated cgroup1 code. And it comes
> at the cost of higher memory footprint for both cgroup1 AND cgroup2.
I still think it is, but I can easily be wrong. I am hoping that the
memory footprint is not a problem. There are *roughly* 80 per-memcg
stats/events (MEMCG_NR_STAT + NR_MEMCG_EVENTS) and 55 per-lruvec stats
(NR_VM_NODE_STAT_ITEMS). For each stat there is an extra 8 bytes, so
on a two-node machine that's 8 * (80 + 55 * 2) ~= 1.5 KiB per memcg.
Given that struct mem_cgroup is already large, and can easily be 100s
of KiBs on a large machine with many cpus, I hope there won't be a
noticeable regression.
>
> If this causes a regression, we should revert it again. But let's try.
Of course. Fingers crossed.
