On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:53 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > When an outside process lowers one of the memory limits of a cgroup > (or uses the force_empty knob in cgroup1), direct reclaim is performed > in the context of the write(), in order to directly enforce the new > limit and have it being met by the time the write() returns. > > Currently, this reclaim activity is accounted as memory pressure in > the cgroup that the writer(!) belongs to. This is unexpected. Indeed this is unexpected. > It > specifically causes problems for senpai > (https://github.com/facebookincubator/senpai), which is an agent that > routinely adjusts the memory limits and performs associated reclaim > work in tens or even hundreds of cgroups running on the host. The > cgroup that senpai is running in itself will report elevated levels of > memory pressure, even though it itself is under no memory shortage or > any sort of distress. > > Move the psi annotation from the central cgroup reclaim function to > callsites in the allocation context, and thereby no longer count any > limit-setting reclaim as memory pressure. If the newly set limit > causes the workload inside the cgroup into direct reclaim, that of > course will continue to count as memory pressure. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
