On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:33:09 -0400 Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 05:24:11PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Add a memory.swap.high knob, which can be used to protect the system
> > from SWAP exhaustion. The mechanism used for penalizing is similar
> > to memory.high penalty (sleep on return to user space), but with
> > a less steep slope.
>
> The last part is no longer true after incorporating Michal's feedback.
>
> > + /*
> > + * Make the swap curve more gradual, swap can be considered "cheaper",
> > + * and is allocated in larger chunks. We want the delays to be gradual.
> > + */
>
> This comment is also out-of-date, as the same curve is being applied.
Indeed :S
> > + penalty_jiffies += calculate_high_delay(memcg, nr_pages,
> > + swap_find_max_overage(memcg));
> > +
> > /*
> > * Clamp the max delay per usermode return so as to still keep the
> > * application moving forwards and also permit diagnostics, albeit
> > @@ -2585,12 +2608,25 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > * reclaim, the cost of mismatch is negligible.
> > */
> > do {
> > - if (page_counter_is_above_high(&memcg->memory)) {
> > - /* Don't bother a random interrupted task */
> > - if (in_interrupt()) {
> > + bool mem_high, swap_high;
> > +
> > + mem_high = page_counter_is_above_high(&memcg->memory);
> > + swap_high = page_counter_is_above_high(&memcg->swap);
>
> Please open-code these checks instead - we don't really do getters and
> predicates for these, and only have the setters because they are more
> complicated operations.
I added this helper because the calculation doesn't fit into 80 chars.
In particular reclaim_high will need a temporary variable or IMHO
questionable line split.
static void reclaim_high(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
unsigned int nr_pages,
gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
do {
if (!page_counter_is_above_high(&memcg->memory))
continue;
memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_HIGH);
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages, gfp_mask, true);
} while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) &&
!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg));
}
What's your preference? Mine is a helper, but I'm probably not
sensitive enough to the ontology here :)
> > + if (mem_high || swap_high) {
> > + /* Use one counter for number of pages allocated
> > + * under pressure to save struct task space and
> > + * avoid two separate hierarchy walks.
> > + /*
> > current->memcg_nr_pages_over_high += batch;
>
> That comment style is leaking out of the networking code ;-) Please
> use the customary style in this code base, /*\n *...
>
> As for one counter instead of two: I'm not sure that question arises
> in the reader. There have also been some questions recently what the
> counter actually means. How about the following:
>
> /*
> * The allocating tasks in this cgroup will need to do
> * reclaim or be throttled to prevent further growth
> * of the memory or swap footprints.
> *
> * Target some best-effort fairness between the tasks,
> * and distribute reclaim work and delay penalties
> * based on how much each task is actually allocating.
> */
sounds good!
> Otherwise, the patch looks good to me.
Thanks!
