On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:43 AM Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 27.6.2022 11.05, 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.
> >
> >> 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
> > current is not a descendant of page's obj_cgroup->memcg) is a good
> > place to start?
> >
> > My rationale is that if the page is charged to root_mem_cgroup through
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> I think you have to uncharge at the reparented parent to keep balances
> right (because parent is hierarchically charged thru page_counter). And
> maybe recharge after that if appropriate.
>
Yeah when I say "recharge" I mean transferring the accounting from one
memcg to another. I think every page should end up accounted to one
memcg afterall. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
>
>
> >
> >> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
