> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:07 PM
> To: Zhang, Cathy <cathy.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Linux MM <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>;
> Cgroups <cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; Brandeburg, Jesse
> <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx>; Srinivas, Suresh
> <suresh.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx>; Chen, Tim C <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>; You,
> Lizhen <lizhen.you@xxxxxxxxx>; eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx;
> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: Keep sk->sk_forward_alloc as a proper
> size
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:54 PM Zhang, Cathy <cathy.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 7:25 PM
> > > To: Zhang, Cathy <cathy.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Linux MM
> > > <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>; Cgroups <cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo
> Abeni
> > > <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx>; Srinivas, Suresh
> > > <suresh.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx>; Chen, Tim C <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > > You, Lizhen <lizhen.you@xxxxxxxxx>; eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx;
> > > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: Keep sk->sk_forward_alloc as
> > > a proper size
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:11 PM Zhang, Cathy <cathy.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Shakeel, Eric and all,
> > > >
> > > > How about adding memory pressure checking in sk_mem_uncharge() to
> > > > decide if keep part of memory or not, which can help avoid the
> > > > issue you fixed and the problem we find on the system with more CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > The code draft is like this:
> > > >
> > > > static inline void sk_mem_uncharge(struct sock *sk, int size) {
> > > > int reclaimable;
> > > > int reclaim_threshold = SK_RECLAIM_THRESHOLD;
> > > >
> > > > if (!sk_has_account(sk))
> > > > return;
> > > > sk->sk_forward_alloc += size;
> > > >
> > > > if (mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && sk->sk_memcg &&
> > > > mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(sk->sk_memcg)) {
> > > > sk_mem_reclaim(sk);
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > reclaimable = sk->sk_forward_alloc -
> > > > sk_unused_reserved_mem(sk);
> > > >
> > > > if (reclaimable > reclaim_threshold) {
> > > > reclaimable -= reclaim_threshold;
> > > > __sk_mem_reclaim(sk, reclaimable);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I've run a test with the new code, the result looks good, it does
> > > > not introduce latency, RPS is the same.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It will not work for sockets that are idle, after a burst.
> > > If we restore per socket caches, we will need a shrinker.
> > > Trust me, we do not want that kind of big hammer, crushing latencies.
> > >
> > > Have you tried to increase batch sizes ?
> >
> > I jus picked up 256 and 1024 for a try, but no help, the overhead still exists.
>
> This makes no sense at all.
Eric,
I added a pr_info in try_charge_memcg() to print nr_pages if
nr_pages >= MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH, except it prints 64 during the initialization
of instances, there is no other output during the running. That means nr_pages is not
over 64, I guess that might be the reason why to increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH
doesn't affect this case.
>
> I suspect a plain bug in mm/memcontrol.c
>
> I will let mm experts work on this.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Any kind of cache (even per-cpu) might need some adjustment when
> > > core count or expected traffic is increasing.
> > > This was somehow hinted in
> > > commit 1813e51eece0ad6f4aacaeb738e7cced46feb470
> > > Author: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Thu Aug 25 00:05:06 2022 +0000
> > >
> > > memcg: increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > index
> > >
> 222d7370134c73e59fdbdf598ed8d66897dbbf1d..0418229d30c25d114132a1e
> > > d46ac01358cf21424
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> > > * TODO: maybe necessary to use big numbers in big irons or dynamic
> > > based of the
> > > * workload.
> > > */
> > > -#define MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH 64U
> > > +#define MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH 128U
> > >
> > > extern struct mem_cgroup *root_mem_cgroup;
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h index
> > >
> 656ea89f60ff90d600d16f40302000db64057c64..82f6a288be650f886b207e6a
> > > 5e62a1d5dda808b0
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/sock.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> > > @@ -1433,8 +1433,8 @@ sk_memory_allocated(const struct sock *sk)
> > > return proto_memory_allocated(sk->sk_prot);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/* 1 MB per cpu, in page units */
> > > -#define SK_MEMORY_PCPU_RESERVE (1 << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT))
> > > +/* 2 MB per cpu, in page units */
> > > +#define SK_MEMORY_PCPU_RESERVE (1 << (21 - PAGE_SHIFT))
> > >
> > > static inline void
> > > sk_memory_allocated_add(struct sock *sk, int amt)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 12:10 AM
> > > > > To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Linux MM <linux-
> > > > > mm@xxxxxxxxx>; Cgroups <cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Zhang, Cathy <cathy.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Abeni
> > > > > <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx>; Srinivas, Suresh
> > > > > <suresh.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx>; Chen, Tim C <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > > > > You, Lizhen <lizhen.you@xxxxxxxxx>; eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: Keep sk->sk_forward_alloc
> > > > > as a proper size
> > > > >
> > > > > +linux-mm & cgroup
> > > > >
> > > > > Thread: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230508020801.10702-1-
> > > > > cathy.zhang@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 8:43 AM Eric Dumazet
> > > > > <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Some mm experts should chime in, this is not a networking issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most of the MM folks are busy in LSFMM this week. I will take a
> > > > > look at this soon.
