On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:05:06AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 12:11 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 03:32:02AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:57 AM Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This version is rebased on mm-unstable. Hopefully, Andrew can get this series
> > > > into mm-unstable which will help to determine whether there is a problem or
> > > > degradation. I am also doing some benchmark tests in parallel.
> > > >
> > > > Since the following patchsets applied. All the kernel memory are charged
> > > > with the new APIs of obj_cgroup.
> > > >
> > > > commit f2fe7b09a52b ("mm: memcg/slab: charge individual slab objects instead of pages")
> > > > commit b4e0b68fbd9d ("mm: memcontrol: 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.
> > >
> > > This is amazing work!
> > >
> > > Sorry if I came late, I didn't follow the threads of previous versions
> > > so this might be redundant, I just have a couple of questions.
> > >
> > > a) If LRU pages keep getting parented until they reach root_mem_cgroup
> > > (assuming they can), aren't these pages effectively unaccounted at
> > > this point or leaked? Is there protection against this?
> > >
> >
> > In this case, those pages are accounted in root memcg level. Unfortunately,
> > there is no mechanism now to transfer a page's memcg from one to another.
> >
> > > b) Since moving charged pages between memcgs is now becoming easier by
> > > using the APIs of obj_cgroup, I wonder if this opens the door for
> > > future work to transfer charges to memcgs that are actually using
> > > reparented resources. For example, let's say cgroup A reads a few
> > > pages into page cache, and then they are no longer used by cgroup A.
> > > cgroup B, however, is using the same pages that are currently charged
> > > to cgroup A, so it keeps taxing cgroup A for its use. When cgroup A
> > > dies, and these pages are reparented to A's parent, can we possibly
> > > mark these reparented pages (maybe in the page tables somewhere) so
> > > that next time they get accessed we recharge them to B instead
> > > (possibly asynchronously)?
> > > I don't have much experience about page tables but I am pretty sure
> > > they are loaded so maybe there is no room in PTEs for something like
> > > this, but I have always wondered about what we can do for this case
> > > where a cgroup is consistently using memory charged to another cgroup.
> > > Maybe when this memory is reparented is a good point in time to decide
> > > to recharge appropriately. It would also fix the reparenty leak to
> > > root problem (if it even exists).
> > >
> >
> > From my point of view, this is going to be an improvement to the memcg
> > subsystem in the future. IIUC, most reparented pages are page cache
> > pages without be mapped to users. So page tables are not a suitable
> > place to record this information. However, we already have this information
> > in struct obj_cgroup and struct mem_cgroup. If a page's obj_cgroup is not
> > equal to the page's obj_cgroup->memcg->objcg, it means this page have
> > been reparented. I am thinking if a place where a page is mapped (probably
> > page fault patch) or page (cache) is written (usually vfs write path)
> > is suitable to transfer page's memcg from one to another. But need more
>
> Very good point about unmapped pages, I missed this. Page tables will
> do us no good here. Such a change would indeed require careful thought
> because (like you mentioned) there are multiple points in time where
> it might be suitable to consider recharging the page (e.g. when the
> page is mapped). This could be an incremental change though. Right now
> we have no recharging at all, so maybe we can gradually add recharging
> to suitable paths.
>
Agree.
> > thinking, e.g. How to decide if a reparented page needs to be transferred?
>
> Maybe if (page's obj_cgroup->memcg == root_mem_cgroup) OR (memcg of
This is a good start.
> current is not a descendant of page's obj_cgroup->memcg) is a good
I am not sure this one since a page could be shared between different
memcg.
root
/ \
A B
/ \ \
C E D
e.g. a page (originally, it belongs to memcg E and E is dying) is reparented
to memcg A, and it is shared between C and D now. Then we need to consider
whether it should be recharged. Yep, we need more thinging about recharging.
> place to start?
>
> My rationale is that if the page is charged to root_mem_cgroup through
I think the following issue not only exists in root_mem_cgroup but also
in non-root.
> reparenting and a process in a memcg is using it then this is probably
> an accounting leak. If a page is charged to a memcg A through
> reparenting and is used by a memcg B in a different subtree, then
> probably memcg B is getting away with using the page for free while A
> is being taxed. If B is a descendant of A, it is still getting away
> with using the page unaccounted, but at least it makes no difference
> for A.
I agree this case needs to be improved.
>
> One could argue that we might as well recharge a reparented page
> anyway if the process is cheap (or done asynchronously), and the paths
> where we do recharging are not very common.
>
> All of this might be moot, I am just thinking out loud. In any way
> this would be future work and not part of this work.
>
Agree.
Thanks.
>
> > If we need more information to make this decision, where to store those
> > information? This is my primary thoughts on this question.
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > > Thanks again for this work and please excuse my ignorance if any part
> > > of what I said doesn't make sense :)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ```bash
> > > > #!/bin/bash
> > > >
> > > > dd if=/dev/zero of=temp bs=4096 count=1
> > > > cat /proc/cgroups | grep memory
> > > >
> > > > for i in {0..2000}
> > > > do
> > > > mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test$i
> > > > echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test$i/cgroup.procs
> > > > cat temp >> log
> > > > echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/cgroup.procs
> > > > rmdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test$i
> > > > done
> > > >
> > > > cat /proc/cgroups | grep memory
> > > >
> > > > rm -f temp log
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > v5: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220530074919.46352-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220524060551.80037-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220216115132.52602-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210916134748.67712-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210814052519.86679-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > RFC v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210527093336.14895-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > RFC v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210421070059.69361-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210409122959.82264-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210330101531.82752-1-songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > >
> > > > v6:
> > > > - Collect Acked-by and Reviewed-by from Roman and Michal Koutný. Thanks.
> > > > - Rebase to mm-unstable.
> > > >
> > > > v5:
> > > > - Lots of improvements from Johannes, Roman and Waiman.
> > > > - Fix lockdep warning reported by kernel test robot.
> > > > - Add two new patches to do code cleanup.
> > > > - Collect Acked-by and Reviewed-by from Johannes and Roman.
> > > > - I didn't replace local_irq_disable/enable() to local_lock/unlock_irq() since
> > > > local_lock/unlock_irq() takes an parameter, it needs more thinking to transform
> > > > it to local_lock. It could be an improvement in the future.
> > > >
> > > > v4:
> > > > - Resend and rebased on v5.18.
> > > >
> > > > v3:
> > > > - Removed the Acked-by tags from Roman since this version is based on
> > > > the folio relevant.
> > > >
> > > > v2:
> > > > - Rename obj_cgroup_release_kmem() to obj_cgroup_release_bytes() and the
> > > > dependencies of CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM (suggested by Roman, Thanks).
> > > > - Rebase to linux 5.15-rc1.
> > > > - Add a new pacth to cleanup mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled().
> > > >
> > > > v1:
> > > > - Drop RFC tag.
> > > > - Rebase to linux next-20210811.
> > > >
> > > > RFC v4:
> > > > - Collect Acked-by from Roman.
> > > > - Rebase to linux next-20210525.
> > > > - Rename obj_cgroup_release_uncharge() to obj_cgroup_release_kmem().
> > > > - Change the patch 1 title to "prepare objcg API for non-kmem usage".
> > > > - Convert reparent_ops_head to an array in patch 8.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for Roman's review and suggestions.
> > > >
> > > > RFC v3:
> > > > - Drop the code cleanup and simplification patches. Gather those patches
> > > > into a separate series[1].
> > > > - Rework patch #1 suggested by Johannes.
> > > >
> > > > RFC v2:
> > > > - Collect Acked-by tags by Johannes. Thanks.
> > > > - Rework lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock() suggested by Johannes. Thanks.
> > > > - Fix move_pages_to_lru().
> > > >
> > > > Muchun Song (11):
> > > > mm: memcontrol: remove dead code and comments
> > > > mm: rename unlock_page_lruvec{_irq, _irqrestore} to
> > > > lruvec_unlock{_irq, _irqrestore}
> > > > mm: memcontrol: prepare objcg API for non-kmem usage
> > > > mm: memcontrol: make lruvec lock safe when LRU pages are reparented
> > > > mm: vmscan: rework move_pages_to_lru()
> > > > mm: thp: make split queue lock safe when LRU pages are reparented
> > > > mm: memcontrol: make all the callers of {folio,page}_memcg() safe
> > > > mm: memcontrol: introduce memcg_reparent_ops
> > > > mm: memcontrol: use obj_cgroup APIs to charge the LRU pages
> > > > mm: lru: add VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO to lru maintenance function
> > > > mm: lru: use lruvec lock to serialize memcg changes
> > > >
> > > > fs/buffer.c | 4 +-
> > > > fs/fs-writeback.c | 23 +-
> > > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 218 +++++++++------
> > > > include/linux/mm_inline.h | 6 +
> > > > include/trace/events/writeback.h | 5 +
> > > > mm/compaction.c | 39 ++-
> > > > mm/huge_memory.c | 153 ++++++++--
> > > > mm/memcontrol.c | 584 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > > > mm/migrate.c | 4 +
> > > > mm/mlock.c | 2 +-
> > > > mm/page_io.c | 5 +-
> > > > mm/swap.c | 49 ++--
> > > > mm/vmscan.c | 66 ++---
> > > > 13 files changed, 776 insertions(+), 382 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > base-commit: 882be1ed6b1b5073fc88552181b99bd2b9c0031f
> > > > --
> > > > 2.11.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
