Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:55:58AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 12:12 AM Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:57:52AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > > > > This all can get quite expensive so the primary question is, does the
>> > > > > > existing behavior generates any real issues or is this more of an
>> > > > > > correctness exercise? I mean it certainly is not great to demote to an
>> > > > > > incompatible numa node but are there any reasonable configurations when
>> > > > > > the demotion target node is explicitly excluded from memory
>> > > > > > policy/cpuset?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We haven't got customer report on this, but there are quite some customers
>> > > > > use cpuset to bind some specific memory nodes to a docker (You've helped
>> > > > > us solve a OOM issue in such cases), so I think it's practical to respect
>> > > > > the cpuset semantics as much as we can.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, it is definitely better to respect cpusets and all local memory
>> > > > policies. There is no dispute there. The thing is whether this is really
>> > > > worth it. How often would cpusets (or policies in general) go actively
>> > > > against demotion nodes (i.e. exclude those nodes from their allowes node
>> > > > mask)?
>> > > >
>> > > > I can imagine workloads which wouldn't like to get their memory demoted
>> > > > for some reason but wouldn't it be more practical to tell that
>> > > > explicitly (e.g. via prctl) rather than configuring cpusets/memory
>> > > > policies explicitly?
>> > > >
>> > > > > Your concern about the expensive cost makes sense! Some raw ideas are:
>> > > > > * if the shrink_folio_list is called by kswapd, the folios come from
>> > > > > the same per-memcg lruvec, so only one check is enough
>> > > > > * if not from kswapd, like called form madvise or DAMON code, we can
>> > > > > save a memcg cache, and if the next folio's memcg is same as the
>> > > > > cache, we reuse its result. And due to the locality, the real
>> > > > > check is rarely performed.
>> > > >
>> > > > memcg is not the expensive part of the thing. You need to get from page
>> > > > -> all vmas::vm_policy -> mm -> task::mempolicy
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, on the same page with Michal. Figuring out mempolicy from page
>> > > seems quite expensive and the correctness can't be guranteed since the
>> > > mempolicy could be set per-thread and the mm->task depends on
>> > > CONFIG_MEMCG so it doesn't work for !CONFIG_MEMCG.
>> >
>> > Yes, you are right. Our "working" psudo code for mem policy looks like
>> > what Michal mentioned, and it can't work for all cases, but try to
>> > enforce it whenever possible:
>> >
>> > static bool __check_mpol_demotion(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> > unsigned long addr, void *arg)
>> > {
>> > bool *skip_demotion = arg;
>> > struct mempolicy *mpol;
>> > int nid, dnid;
>> > bool ret = true;
>> >
>> > mpol = __get_vma_policy(vma, addr);
>> > if (!mpol) {
>> > struct task_struct *task;
>> > if (vma->vm_mm)
>> > task = vma->vm_mm->owner;
>>
>> But this task may not be the task you want IIUC. For example, the
>> process has two threads, A and B. They have different mempolicy. The
>> vmscan is trying to demote a page belonging to thread A, but the task
>> may point to thread B, so you actually get the wrong mempolicy IIUC.
>
> Yes, this is a valid concern! We don't have good solution for this.
> For memory policy, we may only handle the per-vma policy for now whose
> cost is relatively low, as a best-effort try.
Yes. The solution isn't perfect, especially for multiple-thread
processes with thread specific memory policy. But the proposed code
above can support the most common cases at least, that is, run workload
with `numactl`.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
