On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 5:26 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:39 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > commit 3f1509c57b1b ("Revert "mm/vmscan: never demote for memcg
> >> > reclaim"") enabled demotion in memcg reclaim, which is the right thing
> >> > to do, however, I suspect it introduced a regression in the behavior of
> >> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages().
> >> >
> >> > The callers of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() expect it to attempt to
> >> > reclaim - not demote - nr_pages from the cgroup. I.e. the memory usage
> >> > of the cgroup should reduce by nr_pages. The callers expect
> >> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() to also return the number of pages
> >> > reclaimed, not demoted.
> >> >
> >> > However, what try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() actually does is it
> >> > unconditionally counts demoted pages as reclaimed pages. So in practice
> >> > when it is called it will often demote nr_pages and return the number of
> >> > demoted pages to the caller. Demoted pages don't lower the memcg usage,
> >> > and so I think try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() is not actually doing what
> >> > the callers want it to do.
> >> >
> >> > I suspect various things work suboptimally on memory systems or don't
> >> > work at all due to this:
> >> >
> >> > - memory.high enforcement likely doesn't work (it just demotes nr_pages
> >> > instead of lowering the memcg usage by nr_pages).
> >> > - try_charge_memcg() will keep retrying the charge while
> >> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() is just demoting pages and not actually
> >> > making any room for the charge.
> >> > - memory.reclaim has a wonky interface. It advertises to the user it
> >> > reclaims the provided amount but it will actually demote that amount.
> >> >
> >> > There may be more effects to this issue.
> >> >
> >> > To fix these issues I propose shrink_folio_list() to only count pages
> >> > demoted from inside of sc->nodemask to outside of sc->nodemask as
> >> > 'reclaimed'.
> >> >
> >> > For callers such as reclaim_high() or try_charge_memcg() that set
> >> > sc->nodemask to NULL, try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() will try to
> >> > actually reclaim nr_pages and return the number of pages reclaimed. No
> >> > demoted pages would count towards the nr_pages requirement.
> >> >
> >> > For callers such as memory_reclaim() that set sc->nodemask,
> >> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() will free nr_pages from that nodemask
> >> > with either reclaim or demotion.
> >>
> >> Have you checked all callers? For example, IIUC, in
> >> reclaim_clean_pages_from_list(), although sc.nodemask == NULL, the
> >> demoted pages should be counted as reclaimed.
> >
> > I checked all call stacks leading to shrink_folio_list() now (at least
> > I hope). Here is what I think they do and how I propose to handle
> > them:
> >
> > - reclaim_clean_pages_from_list() & __node_reclaim() & balance_pgdat()
> > These try to free memory from a specific node, and both demotion and
> > reclaim from that node should be counted. I propose these calls set
> > sc>nodemask = pgdat.node_id to signal to shrink_folio_list() that both
> > demotion and reclaim from this node should be counted.
> >
> > - try_to_free_pages()
> > Tries to free pages from a specific nodemask. It sets sc->nodemask to
> > ac->nodemask. In this case pages demoted within the nodemask should
> > not count. Pages demoted outside of the nodemask should count, which
> > this patch already tries to do.
> >
> > - mem_cgroup_shrink_node()
> > This is memcg soft limit reclaim. AFAIU only reclaim should be
> > counted. It already sets sc->nodemask=NULL to indicate that it
> > requires reclaim from all nodes and that only reclaimed memory should
> > be counted, which this patch already tries to do.
> >
> > - try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> > This is covered in the commit message. Many callers set nodemask=NULL
> > indicating they want reclaim and demotion should not count.
> > memory.reclaim sets nodemask depending on the 'nodes=' arg and wants
> > demotion and reclaim from that nodemask.
> >
> > - reclaim_folio_list()
> > Sets no_demotion = 1. No ambiguity here, only reclaims and counts
> > reclaimed pages.
> >
> > If agreeable I can fix reclaim_clean_pages_from_list() &
> > __node_reclaim() & balance_pgdat() call sites in v3.
>
> Looks good to me, Thanks!
>
Thanks. Sent out v3 with the comments addressed. PTAL whenever convenient:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221206023406.3182800-1-almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> >> How about count both
> >> "demoted" and "reclaimed" in struct scan_control, and let callers to
> >> determine how to use the number?
> >>
> >
> > I don't think this is by itself enough. Pages demoted between 2 nodes
> > that are both in sc->nodemask should not count, I think. So 'demoted'
> > needs to be specifically pages demoted outside of the nodemask.
>
> Yes. Maybe we can do that when we need it. I suggest to change the
> return value description in the comments of shrink_folio_list().
>
> > We can do 2 things:
> >
> > 1. Only allow the kernel to demote outside the nodemask (which you
> > don't prefer).
> > 2. Allow the kernel to demote inside the nodemask but not count them.
> >
> > I will see if I can implement #2.
>
> Thanks!
>
> >> > Tested this change using memory.reclaim interface. With this change,
> >> >
> >> > echo "1m" > memory.reclaim
> >> >
> >> > Will cause freeing of 1m of memory from the cgroup regardless of the
> >> > demotions happening inside.
> >> >
> >> > echo "1m nodes=0" > memory.reclaim
> >>
> >> Have you tested these tests in the original kernel? If so, whether does
> >> the issue you suspected above occurs during testing?
> >>
> >
> > Yes. I set up a test case where I allocate 500m in a cgroup, and then do:
> >
> > echo "50m" > memory.reclaim
> >
> > Without my fix, my kernel demotes 70mb and reclaims 4 mb.
> >
> > With my v1 fix, my kernel demotes all memory possible and reclaims 60mb.
> >
> > I will add this to the commit message in the next version.
>
> Good! Thanks!
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
> >>
> >> > Will cause freeing of 1m of node 0 by demotion if a demotion target is
> >> > available, and by reclaim if no demotion target is available.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > This is developed on top of mm-unstable largely because I need the
> >> > memory.reclaim nodes= arg to test it properly.
> >> > ---
> >> > mm/vmscan.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> > index 2b42ac9ad755..8f6e993b870d 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> > @@ -1653,6 +1653,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
> >> > LIST_HEAD(free_folios);
> >> > LIST_HEAD(demote_folios);
> >> > unsigned int nr_reclaimed = 0;
> >> > + unsigned int nr_demoted = 0;
> >> > unsigned int pgactivate = 0;
> >> > bool do_demote_pass;
> >> > struct swap_iocb *plug = NULL;
> >> > @@ -2085,7 +2086,17 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
> >> > /* 'folio_list' is always empty here */
> >> >
> >> > /* Migrate folios selected for demotion */
> >> > - nr_reclaimed += demote_folio_list(&demote_folios, pgdat);
> >> > + nr_demoted = demote_folio_list(&demote_folios, pgdat);
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * Only count demoted folios as reclaimed if we demoted them from
> >> > + * inside of the nodemask to outside of the nodemask, hence reclaiming
> >> > + * pages in the nodemask.
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (sc->nodemask && node_isset(pgdat->node_id, *sc->nodemask) &&
> >> > + !node_isset(next_demotion_node(pgdat->node_id), *sc->nodemask))
> >> > + nr_reclaimed += nr_demoted;
> >> > +
> >> > /* Folios that could not be demoted are still in @demote_folios */
> >> > if (!list_empty(&demote_folios)) {
> >> > /* Folios which weren't demoted go back on @folio_list */
> >> > --
> >> > 2.39.0.rc0.267.gcb52ba06e7-goog
> >>
>
