On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 2:11 PM Ivan Babrou <ivan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:05 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:53:43PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We have observed a negative TCP throughput behavior from the following commit:
> > >
> > > * 8e8ae645249b mm: memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket pressure
> > >
> > > It landed back in 2016 in v4.5, so it's not exactly a new issue.
> > >
> > > The crux of the issue is that in some cases with swap present the
> > > workload can be unfairly throttled in terms of TCP throughput.
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed analysis, Ivan.
> >
> > Originally, we pushed back on sockets only when regular page reclaim
> > had completely failed and we were about to OOM. This patch was an
> > attempt to be smarter about it and equalize pressure more smoothly
> > between socket memory, file cache, anonymous pages.
> >
> > After a recent discussion with Shakeel, I'm no longer quite sure the
> > kernel is the right place to attempt this sort of balancing. It kind
> > of depends on the workload which type of memory is more imporant. And
> > your report shows that vmpressure is a flawed mechanism to implement
> > this, anyway.
> >
> > So I'm thinking we should delete the vmpressure thing, and go back to
> > socket throttling only if an OOM is imminent. This is in line with
> > what we do at the system level: sockets get throttled only after
> > reclaim fails and we hit hard limits. It's then up to the users and
> > sysadmin to allocate a reasonable amount of buffers given the overall
> > memory budget.
> >
> > Cgroup accounting, limiting and OOM enforcement is still there for the
> > socket buffers, so misbehaving groups will be contained either way.
> >
> > What do you think? Something like the below patch?
>
> The idea sounds very reasonable to me. I can't really speak for the
> patch contents with any sort of authority, but it looks ok to my
> non-expert eyes.
>
> There were some conflicts when cherry-picking this into v5.15. I think
> the only real one was for the "!sc->proactive" condition not being
> present there. For the rest I just accepted the incoming change.
>
> I'm going to be away from my work computer until December 5th, but
> I'll try to expedite my backported patch to a production machine today
> to confirm that it makes the difference. If I can get some approvals
> on my internal PRs, I should be able to provide the results by EOD
> tomorrow.
I tried the patch and something isn't right here.
With the patch applied I'm capped at ~120MB/s, which is a symptom of a
clamped window.
I can't find any sockets with memcg->socket_pressure = 1, but at the
same time I only see the following rcv_ssthresh assigned to sockets:
$ sudo ss -tim dport 6443 | fgrep rcv_ssthresh | sed
's/.*rcv_ssthresh://' | awk '{ print $1 }' | sort -n | uniq -c | sort
-n | tail
1 64076
181 65495
1456 5792
16531 64088
* 64088 is the default value
* 5792 is 4 * advmss (clamped)
Compare this to a machine without the patch but with
cgroup.memory=nosocket in cmdline:
$ sudo ss -tim dport 6443 | fgrep rcv_ssthresh | sed
's/.*rcv_ssthresh://' | awk '{ print $1 }' | sort -n | uniq -c | sort
-n | tail
8 2806862
8 3777338
8 72776
8 86068
10 2024018
12 3777354
23 91172
29 66984
101 65495
5439 64088
There aren't any clamped sockets here and there are many different
rcv_ssthresh values.
