On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:37 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> During page/folio reclaim, we check if a folio is referenced using
> folio_referenced() to avoid reclaiming folios that have been recently
> accessed (hot memory). The rationale is that this memory is likely to be
> accessed soon, and hence reclaiming it will cause a refault.
>
> For memcg reclaim, we currently only check accesses to the folio from
> processes in the subtree of the target memcg. This behavior was
> originally introduced by commit bed7161a519a ("Memory controller: make
> page_referenced() cgroup aware") a long time ago. Back then, refaulted
> pages would get charged to the memcg of the process that was faulting them
> in. It made sense to only consider accesses coming from processes in the
> subtree of target_mem_cgroup. If a page was charged to memcg A but only
> being accessed by a sibling memcg B, we would reclaim it if memcg A is
> is the reclaim target. memcg B can then fault it back in and get charged
> for it appropriately.
>
> Today, this behavior still makes sense for file pages. However, unlike
> file pages, when swapbacked pages are refaulted they are charged to the
> memcg that was originally charged for them during swapping out. Which
> means that if a swapbacked page is charged to memcg A but only used by
> memcg B, and we reclaim it from memcg A, it would simply be faulted back
> in and charged again to memcg A once memcg B accesses it. In that sense,
> accesses from all memcgs matter equally when considering if a swapbacked
> page/folio is a viable reclaim target.
>
> Modify folio_referenced() to always consider accesses from all memcgs if
> the folio is swapbacked.
It seems to me this change can potentially increase the number of
zombie memcgs. Any risk assessment done on this?
