On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 04:14:07PM -0400, David Finkel wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 1:04 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:44:11AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 03:48:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > ... > > > > > This behavior is particularly useful for work scheduling systems that > > > > > need to track memory usage of worker processes/cgroups per-work-item. > > > > > Since memory can't be squeezed like CPU can (the OOM-killer has > > > > > opinions), these systems need to track the peak memory usage to compute > > > > > system/container fullness when binpacking workitems. > > > > > > Swap still has bad reps but there's nothing drastically worse about it than > > > page cache. ie. If you're under memory pressure, you get thrashing one way > > > or another. If there's no swap, the system is just memlocking anon memory > > > even when they are a lot colder than page cache, so I'm skeptical that no > > > swap + mostly anon + kernel OOM kills is a good strategy in general > > > especially given that the system behavior is not very predictable under OOM > > > conditions. > > > > > > > As mentioned down the email thread, I consider usefulness of peak value > > > > rather limited. It is misleading when memory is reclaimed. But > > > > fundamentally I do not oppose to unifying the write behavior to reset > > > > values. > > > > > > The removal of resets was intentional. The problem was that it wasn't clear > > > who owned those counters and there's no way of telling who reset what when. > > > It was easy to accidentally end up with multiple entities that think they > > > can get timed measurement by resetting. > > > > > > So, in general, I don't think this is a great idea. There are shortcomings > > > to how memory.peak behaves in that its meaningfulness quickly declines over > > > time. This is expected and the rationale behind adding memory.peak, IIRC, > > > was that it was difficult to tell the memory usage of a short-lived cgroup. > > > > > > If we want to allow peak measurement of time periods, I wonder whether we > > > could do something similar to pressure triggers - ie. let users register > > > watchers so that each user can define their own watch periods. This is more > > > involved but more useful and less error-inducing than adding reset to a > > > single counter. > > > > > > Johannes, what do you think? > > > > I'm also not a fan of the ability to reset globally. > > > > I seem to remember a scheme we discussed some time ago to do local > > state tracking without having the overhead in the page counter > > fastpath. The new data that needs to be tracked is a pc->local_peak > > (in the page_counter) and an fd->peak (in the watcher's file state). > > > > 1. Usage peak is tracked in pc->watermark, and now also in pc->local_peak. > > > > 2. Somebody opens the memory.peak. Initialize fd->peak = -1. > > > > 3. If they write, set fd->peak = pc->local_peak = usage. > > > > 4. Usage grows. > > > > 5. They read(). A conventional reader has fd->peak == -1, so we return > > pc->watermark. If the fd has been written to, return max(fd->peak, pc->local_peak). > > > > 6. Usage drops. > > > > 7. New watcher opens and writes. Bring up all existing watchers' > > fd->peak (that aren't -1) to pc->local_peak *iff* latter is bigger. > > Then set the new fd->peak = pc->local_peak = current usage as in 3. > > > > 8. See 5. again for read() from each watcher. > > > > This way all fd's can arbitrarily start tracking new local peaks with > > write(). The operation in the charging fast path is cheap. The write() > > is O(existing_watchers), which seems reasonable. It's fully backward > > compatible with conventional open() + read() users. > > That scheme seems viable, but it's a lot more work to implement and maintain > than a simple global reset. > > Since that scheme maintains a separate pc->local_peak, it's not mutually > exclusive with implementing a global reset now. (as long as we reserve a > way to distinguish the different kinds of writes). > > As discussed on other sub-threads, this might be too niche to be worth > the significant complexity of avoiding a global reset. (especially when > users would likely be moving from cgroups v1 which does have a global reset) The problem is that once global resetting is allowed, it makes the number reported in memory.peak unreliable for everyone. You just don't know, and can't tell, if somebody wrote to it recently. It's not too much of a leap to say this breaks the existing interface contract. You have to decide whether the above is worth implementing. But my take is that the downsides of the simpler solution outweigh its benefits.
