On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:49 PM Roman Gushchin
<roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:13:10AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 9:05 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 03:29:42PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > The discussions on the patch series [1] to add memory.reclaim has
> > > > shown that it is desirable to add an argument to control the type of
> > > > memory being reclaimed by invoked proactive reclaim using
> > > > memory.reclaim.
> > > >
> > > > I am proposing adding a swappiness optional argument to the interface.
> > > > If set, it overwrites vm.swappiness and per-memcg swappiness. This
> > > > provides a way to enforce user policy on a stateless per-reclaim
> > > > basis. We can make policy decisions to perform reclaim differently for
> > > > tasks of different app classes based on their individual QoS needs. It
> > > > also helps for use cases when particularly page cache is high and we
> > > > want to mainly hit that without swapping out.
> > > >
> > > > The interface would be something like this (utilizing the nested-keyed
> > > > interface we documented earlier):
> > > >
> > > > $ echo "200M swappiness=30" > memory.reclaim
> > >
> > > What are the anticipated use cases except swappiness == 0 and
> > > swappiness == system_default?
> > >
> > > IMO it's better to allow specifying the type of memory to reclaim,
> > > e.g. type="file"/"anon"/"slab", it's a way more clear what to expect.
> >
> > I imagined swappiness would give user space flexibility to reclaim a
> > ratio of file vs. anon as it sees fit based on app class or userspace
> > policy, but I agree that the guarantees of swappiness are weak and we
> > might want an explicit argument that directly controls the return
> > value of get_scan_count() or whether or not we call shrink_slab(). My
> > fear is that this interface may be less flexible, for example if we
> > only want to avoid reclaiming file pages, but we are fine with anon or
> > slab.
> > Maybe in the future we will have a new type of memory to
> > reclaim, does it get implicitly reclaimed when other types are
> > specified or not?
> >
> > Maybe we can use one argument per type instead? E.g.
> > $ echo "200M file=no anon=yes slab=yes" > memory.reclaim
> >
> > The default value would be "yes" for all types unless stated
> > otherwise. This is also leaves room for future extensions (maybe
> > file=clean to reclaim clean file pages only?). Interested to hear your
> > thoughts on this!
>
> The question to answer is do you want the code which is determining
> the balance of scanning be a part of the interface?
>
> If not, I'd stick with explicitly specifying a type of memory to scan
> (and the "I don't care" mode, where you simply ask to reclaim X bytes).
>
> Otherwise you need to describe how the artificial memory pressure will
> be distributed over different memory types. And with time it might
> start being significantly different to what the generic reclaim code does,
> because the reclaim path is free to do what's better, there are no
> user-visible guarantees.
My understanding is that your question is about the swappiness
argument, and I agree it can get complicated. I am on board with
explicitly specifying the type(s) to reclaim. I think an interface
with one argument per type (whitelist/blacklist approach) could be
more flexible in specifying multiple types per invocation (smaller
race window between reading usages and writing to memory.reclaim), and
has room for future extensions (e.g. file=clean). However, if you
still think a type=file/anon/slab parameter is better we can also go
with this.
I imagine this will be an enum/flags that will be passed to
try_to_free_pages() instead of may_swap, and then we can map it to one
bit flags in struct scan_control. The anon/file flags will be used to
control list type in shrink_lruvec (get_scan_counts) and
mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(), and the slab flag will be used to
control calls to shrink_slab().
This is orthogonal, but while we are at it we can also add a
"controlled_reclaim" flag that we use to control whether we call
vmpressure or not. I assume we don't want to count vmpressure for
controlled reclaim, similar to PSI. We can then also revert
e22c6ed90aa9 ("mm: memcontrol: don't count limit-setting reclaim as
memory pressure") and use the same flag to control calls to psi.
>
> >
> > >
> > > E.g. what
> > > $ echo "200M swappiness=1" > memory.reclaim
> > > means if there is only 10M of pagecache? How much of anon memory will
> > > be reclaimed?
> >
> > Good point. I agree that the type argument or per-type arguments have
> > multiple advantages over swappiness.
>
> If a user wants to select multiple types of memory, can they just run several
> requests in parallel? Or one by one?
>
> Thanks!
