On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 3:54 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 08-12-22 01:00:40, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:09 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 07-12-22 13:43:55, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 3:12 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Anyway a proper nr_reclaimed tracking should be rather straightforward
> > > > > but I do not expect to make a big difference in practice
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > index 026199c047e0..1b7f2d8cb128 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > > @@ -1633,7 +1633,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
> > > > > LIST_HEAD(ret_folios);
> > > > > LIST_HEAD(free_folios);
> > > > > LIST_HEAD(demote_folios);
> > > > > - unsigned int nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > > > > + unsigned int nr_reclaimed = 0, nr_demoted = 0;
> > > > > unsigned int pgactivate = 0;
> > > > > bool do_demote_pass;
> > > > > struct swap_iocb *plug = NULL;
> > > > > @@ -2065,8 +2065,17 @@ 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);
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Migrate folios selected for demotion.
> > > > > + * Do not consider demoted pages to be reclaimed for the memcg reclaim
> > > > > + * because no charges are really freed during the migration. Global
> > > > > + * reclaim aims at releasing memory from nodes/zones so consider
> > > > > + * demotion to reclaim memory.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + nr_demoted += demote_folio_list(&demote_folios, pgdat);
> > > > > + if (!cgroup_reclaim(sc))
> > > > > + 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 for retry: */
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Thank you again, but this patch breaks the memory.reclaim nodes arg
> > > > for me. This is my test case. I run it on a machine with 2 memory
> > > > tiers.
> > > >
> > > > Memory tier 1= nodes 0-2
> > > > Memory tier 2= node 3
> > > >
> > > > mkdir -p /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/test
> > > > cd /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/test
> > > > echo $$ > cgroup.procs
> > > > head -c 500m /dev/random > /tmp/testfile
> > > > echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/cgroup.procs
> > > > echo "1m nodes=0-2" > memory.reclaim
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion the expected behavior is for the kernel to demote 1mb of
> > > > memory from nodes 0-2 to node 3.
> > > >
> > > > Actual behavior on the tip of mm-unstable is as expected.
> > > >
> > > > Actual behavior with your patch cherry-picked to mm-unstable is that
> > > > the kernel demotes all 500mb of memory from nodes 0-2 to node 3, and
> > > > returns -EAGAIN to the user. This may be the correct behavior you're
> > > > intending, but it completely breaks the use case I implemented the
> > > > nodes= arg for and listed on the commit message of that change.
> > >
> > > Yes, strictly speaking the behavior is correct albeit unexpected. You
> > > have told the kernel to _reclaim_ that much memory but demotion are
> > > simply aging handling rather than a reclaim if the demotion target has a
> > > lot of memory free.
> >
> > Yes, by the strict definition of reclaim, you're completely correct.
> > But in reality earlier I proposed a patch to the kernel that disables
> > demotion in proactive reclaim. That would have been a correct change
> > by the strict definition of reclaim, but Johannes informed me that
> > meta already has a dependency on proactive reclaim triggering demotion
> > and directed me to add a nodes= arg to memory.reclaim to trigger
> > demotion instead, to satisfy both use cases. Seems both us and meta
> > are using this interface to trigger both reclaim and demotion, despite
> > the strict definition of the word?
>
> Well, demotion is a part of aging and that is a part of the reclaim so I
> believe we want both and demotion mostly an implementation detail. If
> you want to have a very precise control then the nodemask should drive
> you there.
>
> [...]
> > > I am worried this will popping up again and again. I thought your nodes
> > > subset approach could deal with this but I have overlooked one important
> > > thing in your patch. The user provided nodemask controls where to
> > > reclaim from but it doesn't constrain demotion targets. Is this
> > > intentional? Would it actually make more sense to control demotion by
> > > addint demotion nodes into the nodemask?
> > >
> >
> > IMO, yes it is intentional, and no I would not recommend adding
> > demotion nodes (I assume you mean adding both demote_from_nodes and
> > demote_to_nodes as arg).
>
> What I really mean is to add demotion nodes to the nodemask along with
> the set of nodes you want to reclaim from. To me that sounds like a
> more natural interface allowing for all sorts of usecases:
> - free up demotion targets (only specify demotion nodes in the mask)
> - control where to demote (e.g. select specific demotion target(s))
> - do not demote at all (skip demotion nodes from the node mask)
For clarification, do you mean to add another argument (e.g.
demotion_nodes) in addition to the "nodes" argument? Also, which
meaning do these arguments have?
- Option 1: The "nodes" argument specifies the source nodes where
pages should be reclaimed (but not demoted) from and the
"demotion_nodes" argument specifies the source nodes where pages
should be demoted (but not reclaimed) from.
- Option 2: The "nodes" argument specifies the source nodes where
pages should be reclaimed or demoted from and the "demotion_nodes"
argument specifies the allowed demotion target nodes.
Option 1 is more flexible in allowing various use cases. Option 2 can
also support the use cases to reclaim only without demotion and
demotion with fallback to reclaim, but cannot support demotion only
without reclaim.
> > My opinion is based on 2 reasons:
> >
> > 1. We control proactive reclaim by looking for nodes/tiers approaching
> > pressure and triggering reclaim/demotion from said nodes/tiers. So we
> > know the node/tier we would like to reclaim from, but not necessarily
> > have a requirement on where the memory should go. I think it should be
> > up to the kernel.
> > 2. Currently I think most tiered machines will have 2 memory tiers,
> > but I think the code is designed to support N memory tiers. What
> > happens if N=3 and the user asks you to demote from the top tier nodes
> > to the bottom tier nodes (skipping the middle tier)? The user in this
> > case is explicitly asking to break the aging pipeline. From my short
> > while on the mailing list I see great interest in respecting the aging
> > pipeline, so it seems to me the demotion target should be decided by
> > the kernel based on the aging pipeline, and the user should not be
> > able to override it? I don't know. Maybe there is a valid use case for
> > that somewhere.
>
> I agree that the agining should be preserved as much as possible unless
> there is an explicit requirement to do otherwise which might be
> something application specific.
>
> It is really hard to assume all the usecases at this stage but we should
> keep in mind that the semantic of the interface will get cast into stone
> once it is released. As of now I do see a great confusion point in the
> nodemask semantic which pretends to allow some fine control while it is
> largerly hard to predict because it makes some assumptions about the
> reclaim while it has a very limited control of the demotion.
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
