On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 10:22 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > > > -
> > > > > - cgroup_rstat_flush(root_mem_cgroup->css.cgroup);
> > > > > + /* A coalesced root flush is in order. Are we the designated flusher? */
> > > > > + spin_lock(&root_flusher_lock);
> > > >
> > > > I can't say I'm crazy about this.
> > > >
> > > > Let's say you have a fairly sprawling and active cgroup tree with lots
> > > > of updates in lots of groups in the system.
> > > >
> > > > Add a periodic memory.stat reader to one of the subgroups, and that
> > > > reader will do very fast, localized aggregation.
> > > >
> > > > Now add a periodic memory.stat reader to some other subgroup. They
> > > > might still both do very fast, localized aggregation. Or they might
> > > > collide; and now - despite having nothing in common, and sharing no
> > > > data besides the rstat lock - will have to flush the entire massive
> > > > tree. The rate at which this happens is purely dependent on timing of
> > > > what should be independent actors. This is really not great for the
> > > > p50 vs p99 gap.
> > >
> > > Initially I had a few retry iterations for the subtree flush, where we
> > > fsleep for a bit and trylock again. I thought it was a little bit too
> > > complicated and the fsleep duration would be a magic value.
> >
> > Hm, how is that different than a mutex / sleepable lock?
>
> It is essentially a lock with a timeout, which IIUC we don't support
> explicitly in the kernel. What I was trying to do was basically to try
> and do a subtree flush, but if we are waiting for too long then a lot
> of people are probably flushing, so let's all switch to a root flush
> and wait for one flusher instead of contending among ourselves.
>
> >
> > > > I think this whole thing is getting away from us.
> > > >
> > > > When we first switched to rstat, every reader would take the global
> > > > rstat lock and then flush its local subtree of interest.
> > > >
> > > > This was changed in the following commit:
> > > >
> > > > commit fd25a9e0e23b995fd0ba5e2f00a1099452cbc3cf
> > > > Author: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Fri Nov 5 13:37:34 2021 -0700
> > > >
> > > > memcg: unify memcg stat flushing
> > > >
> > > > The memcg stats can be flushed in multiple context and potentially in
> > > > parallel too. For example multiple parallel user space readers for
> > > > memcg stats will contend on the rstat locks with each other. There is
> > > > no need for that. We just need one flusher and everyone else can
> > > > benefit.
> > > >
> > > > In addition after aa48e47e3906 ("memcg: infrastructure to flush memcg
> > > > stats") the kernel periodically flush the memcg stats from the root, so,
> > > > the other flushers will potentially have much less work to do.
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211001190040.48086-2-shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The idea was that we can avoid lock contention if somebody is already
> > > > doing the flushing. However, you're now bringing global serialization.
> > > > Clearly that idea didn't work out. What would be an obstacle to go
> > > > back to the original way of doing it?
> > >
> > > The obstacle is high concurrency among flushers. A good example is
> > > reclaim code, we can have a lot of concurrent reclaimers. When I tried
> > > to go back to the original way of doing it, a stress test with high
> > > reclaim concurrency (100s or 1000s) would be 2x-3x slower. I think
> > > high concurrency among userspace reads would have a similar outcome,
> > > but I hadn't really checked.
> > >
> > > Basically this patch is trying to switch to root flushing when the
> > > cost of contending on the lock is roughly the same as a root flush (or
> > > waiting for one). It's doing that too eagerly now of course (if
> > > contenders > 1), we can try to calibrate this better.
> >
> > I don't quite understand this.
> >
> > If you have two readers on separate subtrees, why is it cheaper to
> > flush the entire tree in sequence (where both readers don't care about
> > the majority of the data), than having each reader flush their own
> > small subset one after another? It's not like the whole tree flush
> > parallelizes its work.
> >
> > Where is that overhead actually coming from?
>
> If you have N concurrent readers flushing different parts of the
> subtree, at some point the overhead of N sequential subtree flushes
> will exceed the overhead of a single root flush.
>
> Ideally, we would be able to identify this point, and switch to a
> single root flush with everyone else waiting.
>
> >
> > > > With one reader, this will work the same as in your proposal.
> > > >
> > > > With two readers, just like in your proposal, flushing must be
> > > > serialized against the root level. But at least the two flushes only
> > > > aggregate the local data they actually care about - not the entire
> > > > tree data that doesn't even have readers! This is much better for lock
> > > > contention and performance.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that in my testing, I noticed that synchronization using
> > > a completion is more performant than serialization on a lock. I am
> > > assuming because when we contend on the underlying lock, we serially
> > > wake up and do the flush. Even if there is nothing to do (as you
> > > mention below), we still do this work. On the contrary, in this
> > > proposal we just wait for the root flush to finish and return
> > > immediately, and all waiters return at once (that's a lie because of
> > > scheduling internals).
> >
> > Right, because rstat's do-nothing case is still somewhat costly due to
> > the per-cpu loop and the tree walk.
> >
> > But that should be possible to avoid with the outlined caching of
> > recently-flushed state at the memcg level.
>
> This helps only if concurrent flushers are overlapping, right?
>
> >
> > > Also, in the current code, in the two reader scenario, the first
> > > reader will flush the entire tree anyway. The only difference is that
> > > the second reader will wait for it to finish instead of just skipping,
> > > which is the right thing to do from a correctness point of view. Right
> > > now it's a coin flip on whether you get updated stats if someone else
> > > is already flushing.
> >
> > Agreed, it should wait. My mutex would accomplish this, right?
>
> I think what you're describing here is v4 of the patchset I mention in
> the cover letter:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230831165611.2610118-5-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> The problem with that was that with very high concurrency among
> readers, the read latency is unbounded and can get out of hand. Wei
> shared some numbers in that thread.
>
> What this patch is trying to do is to switch to root flushing if the
> mutex is contended to avoid that scenario. Also, if we keep acquiring
> more flushers at some point we just skip the flush in favor of
> performance (if the number of waiters exceeds the number of cpus). Now
> that I think about it, perhaps we can just go back to the mutex
> approach w/ limiting the number of waiters, without ever falling back
> to a root flush. Not sure how that would work.
>
> Taking a step back, I think what you are implying is that if we make
> the thresholding code per cpu instead of global, this should mitigate
per cgroup*
> the issue in a different way than falling back to root flushing or
> limiting the number of waiters, is that right?
> If yes, I think it will work in some cases where the flushes are
> overlapping as I mentioned above, but not if concurrent readers are
> flushing different parts of the tree. Right?
>
> >
> > > > One concern is the thresholding code. The cost of flushing on every
> > > > read is too high: even when there is no flush work, checking for it is
> > > > kind of expensive due to the locks and the for_each_possible_cpu().
> > > >
> > > > Could we do something like the following?
> > > >
> > > > mem_cgroup_flush(memcg)
> > > > {
> > > > mutex_lock(&memcg_flush_mutex);
> > > > if (atomic_read(&memcg->stat_delta) > THRESHOLD)
> > > > cgroup_rstat_flush(memcg);
> > > > mutex_unlock(&memcg_flush_mutex);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > mem_cgroup_css_rstat_flush(css, cpu)
> > > > {
> > > > ...
> > > > /*
> > > > * Reset here instead of mem_cgroup_flush()
> > > > * so that each flushed subgroup is reset
> > > > * recursively. A recent parent flush will
> > > > * allow a child flush to skip.
> > > > */
> > > > atomic_set(&mem_cgroup_from_css(css)->stat_delta, 0);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > memcg_rstat_updated(memcg, val)
> > > > {
> > > > atomic_add(&memcg->stat_delta, val);
> > >
> > > We need to do this for each parent in the hierarchy, not just the
> > > memcg being updated, right? I guess that may be too expensive for the
> > > update path.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > We need to mark the subgroups that are flushed, so that if you have
> >
> > root - a - a1 - foo
> > `- a2
> >
> > and somebody flushes a, then a1 and a2 also don't need to be flushed
> > for a while.
> >
> > But if we flush a1 first, foo is aggregated into a1. Reading a still
> > needs to aggregate a1 and a2 into a.
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something blatant, but I don't see how we have to
> > mark parents in any way. We only have to tag cgroups up to the point
> > to which they were recently flushed, and we already visit all those.
> >
> > Let me know if I'm missing something blatant here.
>
> I think we are talking about different paths. I believe you are
> talking about resetting memcg->stat_delta, which I agree should be
> done during the flush. What I am talking about is updating
> memcg->stat_delta when memcg_rstat_updated() is called. We would need
> to update that for all parents. In your example hierarchy, if stat
> updates happened in a2, and someone tries to flush a, they should be
> aware that there are stats to flush.
