On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:14 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:16:29AM -0400, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > This patch is an improvement of a previous version[1], as the previous
> > version is not easy to understand.
> > This issue persists in the newest kernel, I have to resend the fix. As
> > the implementation is changed, I drop Roman's ack from the previous
> > version.
>
> Now that I understand the problem, I much prefer the previous version.
>
Great news that this issue is understood by one more reviewer.
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 745697906ce3..2bf91ae1e640 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -6332,8 +6332,19 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_protected(struct mem_cgroup *root,
>
> if (!root)
> root = root_mem_cgroup;
> - if (memcg == root)
> + if (memcg == root) {
> + /*
> + * The cgroup is the reclaim root in this reclaim
> + * cycle, and therefore not protected. But it may have
> + * stale effective protection values from previous
> + * cycles in which it was not the reclaim root - for
> + * example, global reclaim followed by limit reclaim.
> + * Reset these values for mem_cgroup_protection().
> + */
> + memcg->memory.emin = 0;
> + memcg->memory.elow = 0;
> return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
> + }
>
> usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
> if (!usage)
>
> > Here's the explanation of this issue.
> > memory.{low,min} won't take effect if the to-be-reclaimed memcg is the
> > sc->target_mem_cgroup, that can also be proved by the implementation in
> > mem_cgroup_protected(), see bellow,
> > mem_cgroup_protected
> > if (memcg == root) [2]
> > return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
> >
> > But this rule is ignored in mem_cgroup_protection(), which will read
> > memory.{emin, elow} as the protection whatever the memcg is.
> >
> > How would this issue happen?
> > Because in mem_cgroup_protected() we forget to clear the
> > memory.{emin, elow} if the memcg is target_mem_cgroup [2].
> >
> > An example to illustrate this issue.
> > root_mem_cgroup
> > /
> > A memory.max: 1024M
> > memory.min: 512M
> > memory.current: 800M ('current' must be greater than 'min')
> > Once kswapd starts to reclaim memcg A, it assigns 512M to memory.emin of A.
> > Then kswapd stops.
> > As a result of it, the memory values of A will be,
> > root_mem_cgroup
> > /
> > A memory.max: 1024M
> > memory.min: 512M
> > memory.current: 512M (approximately)
> > memory.emin: 512M
> >
> > Then a new workload starts to run in memcg A, and it will trigger memcg
> > relcaim in A soon. As memcg A is the target_mem_cgroup of this
> > reclaimer, so it return directly without touching memory.{emin, elow}.[2]
> > The memory values of A will be,
> > root_mem_cgroup
> > /
> > A memory.max: 1024M
> > memory.min: 512M
> > memory.current: 1024M (approximately)
> > memory.emin: 512M
> > Then this memory.emin will be used in mem_cgroup_protection() to get the
> > scan count, which is obvoiusly a wrong scan count.
> >
> > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200216145249.6900-1-laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim")
> > Cc: Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> As others have noted, it's fairly hard to understand the problem from
> the above changelog. How about the following:
>
> A cgroup can have both memory protection and a memory limit to isolate
> it from its siblings in both directions - for example, to prevent it
> from being shrunk below 2G under high pressure from outside, but also
> from growing beyond 4G under low pressure.
>
> 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim")
> implemented proportional scan pressure so that multiple siblings in
> excess of their protection settings don't get reclaimed equally but
> instead in accordance to their unprotected portion.
>
> During limit reclaim, this proportionality shouldn't apply of course:
> there is no competition, all pressure is from within the cgroup and
> should be applied as such. Reclaim should operate at full efficiency.
>
> However, mem_cgroup_protected() never expected anybody to look at the
> effective protection values when it indicated that the cgroup is above
> its protection. As a result, a query during limit reclaim may return
> stale protection values that were calculated by a previous reclaim
> cycle in which the cgroup did have siblings.
>
> When this happens, reclaim is unnecessarily hesitant and potentially
> slow to meet the desired limit. In theory this could lead to premature
> OOM kills, although it's not obvious this has occurred in practice.
Thanks a lot for your improvement on the change log.
--
Thanks
Yafang
