On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:04:44PM +0200, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:27:37AM +0100, Chris Down wrote:
> > peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:08:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > Memory controller can be used to control and limit the amount of
> > > > physical memory used by a task. When a limit is set in "memory.high" in
> > > > a v2 non-root memory cgroup, the memory controller will try to reclaim
> > > > memory if the limit has been exceeded. Normally, that will be enough
> > > > to keep the physical memory consumption of tasks in the memory cgroup
> > > > to be around or below the "memory.high" limit.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes, memory reclaim may not be able to recover memory in a rate
> > > > that can catch up to the physical memory allocation rate. In this case,
> > > > the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing.
> > >
> > > Then slow down the allocator? That's what we do for dirty pages too, we
> > > slow down the dirtier when we run against the limits.
> >
> > We already do that since v5.4. I'm wondering whether Waiman's customer is
> > just running with a too-old kernel without 0e4b01df865 ("mm, memcg: throttle
> > allocators when failing reclaim over memory.high") backported.
>
> That commit is fundamentally broken, it doesn't guarantee anything.
>
> Please go read how the dirty throttling works (unless people wrecked
> that since..).
Of course they did.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ce7975cd-6353-3f29-b52c-7a81b1d07caa@xxxxxxxxx/
