On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 01:14:57PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:29:46PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:29:41PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > Since the following patchsets applied. All the kernel memory are charged
> > > with the new APIs of obj_cgroup.
> > >
> > > [v17,00/19] The new cgroup slab memory controller
> > > [v5,0/7] Use obj_cgroup APIs to charge kmem pages
> > >
> > > But user memory allocations (LRU pages) pinning memcgs for a long time -
> > > it exists at a larger scale and is causing recurring problems in the real
> > > world: page cache doesn't get reclaimed for a long time, or is used by the
> > > second, third, fourth, ... instance of the same job that was restarted into
> > > a new cgroup every time. Unreclaimable dying cgroups pile up, waste memory,
> > > and make page reclaim very inefficient.
> > >
> > > We can convert LRU pages and most other raw memcg pins to the objcg direction
> > > to fix this problem, and then the LRU pages will not pin the memcgs.
> > >
> > > This patchset aims to make the LRU pages to drop the reference to memory
> > > cgroup by using the APIs of obj_cgroup. Finally, we can see that the number
> > > of the dying cgroups will not increase if we run the following test script.
> > >
> > > ```bash
> > > #!/bin/bash
> > >
> > > cat /proc/cgroups | grep memory
> > >
> > > cd /sys/fs/cgroup/memory
> > >
> > > for i in range{1..500}
> > > do
> > > mkdir test
> > > echo $$ > test/cgroup.procs
> > > sleep 60 &
> > > echo $$ > cgroup.procs
> > > echo `cat test/cgroup.procs` > cgroup.procs
> > > rmdir test
> > > done
> > >
> > > cat /proc/cgroups | grep memory
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Patch 1 aims to fix page charging in page replacement.
> > > Patch 2-5 are code cleanup and simplification.
> > > Patch 6-18 convert LRU pages pin to the objcg direction.
> > >
> > > Any comments are welcome. Thanks.
> >
> > Indeed the problem exists for a long time and it would be nice to fix it.
> > However I'm against merging the patchset in the current form (there are some
> > nice fixes/clean-ups, which can/must be applied independently). Let me explain
> > my concerns:
> >
> > Back to the new slab controller discussion obj_cgroup was suggested by Johannes
> > as a union of two concepts:
> > 1) reparenting (basically an auto-pointer to a memcg in c++ terms)
> > 2) byte-sized accounting
> >
> > I was initially against this union because I anticipated that the reparenting
> > part will be useful separately. And the time told it was true.
>
> "The idea of moving stocks and leftovers to the memcg_ptr/obj_cgroup
> level is really good."
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191025200020.GA8325@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> If you recall, the main concern was how the byte charging interface
> was added to the existing page charging interface, instead of being
> layered on top of it. I suggested to do that and, since there was no
> other user for the indirection pointer, just include it in the API.
>
> It made sense at the time, and you seemed to agree. But I also agree
> it makes sense to factor it out now that more users are materializing.
Agreed.
>
> > I still think obj_cgroup API must be significantly reworked before being
> > applied outside of the kmem area: reparenting part must be separated
> > and moved to the cgroup core level to be used not only in the memcg
> > context but also for other controllers, which are facing similar problems.
> > Spilling obj_cgroup API in the current form over all memcg code will
> > make it more complicated and will delay it, given the amount of changes
> > and the number of potential code conflicts.
> >
> > I'm working on the generalization of obj_cgroup API (as described above)
> > and expect to have some patches next week.
>
> Yeah, splitting the byte charging API from the reference API and
> making the latter cgroup-generic makes sense. I'm looking forward to
> your patches.
>
> And yes, the conflicts between that work and Muchun's patches would be
> quite large. However, most of them would come down to renames, since
> the access rules and refcounting sites will remain the same, so it
> shouldn't be too bad to rebase Muchun's patches on yours. And we can
> continue reviewing his patches for correctness for now.
Sounds good to me!
Thanks
