On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 6:28 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Avoid lock contention on the global cgroup rstat lock caused by kswapd
> starting on all NUMA nodes simultaneously. At Cloudflare, we observed
> massive issues due to kswapd and the specific mem_cgroup_flush_stats()
> call inlined in shrink_node, which takes the rstat lock.
>
> On our 12 NUMA node machines, each with a kswapd kthread per NUMA node,
> we noted severe lock contention on the rstat lock. This contention
> causes 12 CPUs to waste cycles spinning every time kswapd runs.
> Fleet-wide stats (/proc/N/schedstat) for kthreads revealed that we are
> burning an average of 20,000 CPU cores fleet-wide on kswapd, primarily
> due to spinning on the rstat lock.
>
> Help reviewers follow code: __alloc_pages_slowpath calls wake_all_kswapds
> causing all kswapdN threads to wake up simultaneously. The kswapd thread
> invokes shrink_node (via balance_pgdat) triggering the cgroup rstat flush
> operation as part of its work. This results in kernel self-induced rstat
> lock contention by waking up all kswapd threads simultaneously. Leveraging
> this detail: balance_pgdat() have NULL value in target_mem_cgroup, this
> cause mem_cgroup_flush_stats() to do flush with root_mem_cgroup.
>
> To avoid this kind of thundering herd problem, kernel previously had a
> "stats_flush_ongoing" concept, but this was removed as part of commit
> 7d7ef0a4686a ("mm: memcg: restore subtree stats flushing"). This patch
> reintroduce and generalized the concept to apply to all users of cgroup
> rstat, not just memcg.
>
> If there is an ongoing rstat flush, and current cgroup is a descendant,
> then it is unnecessary to do the flush. For callers to still see updated
> stats, wait for ongoing flusher to complete before returning, but add
> timeout as stats are already inaccurate given updaters keeps running.
>
> Fixes: 7d7ef0a4686a ("mm: memcg: restore subtree stats flushing").
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for working on this, Jesper! I love the data you collected here!
I think the commit subject and message should be changed to better
describe the patch. This is a patch that exclusively modifies cgroup
code, yet the subject is about kswapd. This change affects all users
of rstat flushing.
I think a better subject would be:
"cgroup/rstat: avoid flushing if there is an ongoing overlapping
flush" or similar.
The commit message should first describe the cgroup change, and then
use kswapd as a brief example/illustration of how the problem
manifests in practice. You should also include a brief summary of the
numbers you collected from prod.
> ---
> V6: https://lore.kernel.org/all/172052399087.2357901.4955042377343593447.stgit@firesoul/
> V5: https://lore.kernel.org/all/171956951930.1897969.8709279863947931285.stgit@firesoul/
> V4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/171952312320.1810550.13209360603489797077.stgit@firesoul/
> V3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/171943668946.1638606.1320095353103578332.stgit@firesoul/
> V2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/171923011608.1500238.3591002573732683639.stgit@firesoul/
> V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/171898037079.1222367.13467317484793748519.stgit@firesoul/
> RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/all/171895533185.1084853.3033751561302228252.stgit@firesoul/
>
> include/linux/cgroup-defs.h | 2 +
> kernel/cgroup/rstat.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup-defs.h b/include/linux/cgroup-defs.h
> index b36690ca0d3f..a33b37514c29 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cgroup-defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup-defs.h
> @@ -548,6 +548,8 @@ struct cgroup {
> #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> struct bpf_local_storage __rcu *bpf_cgrp_storage;
> #endif
> + /* completion queue for cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher */
> + struct completion flush_done;
>
> /* All ancestors including self */
> struct cgroup *ancestors[];
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c b/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c
> index fb8b49437573..fe2a81a310bb 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> #include "cgroup-internal.h"
>
> #include <linux/sched/cputime.h>
> +#include <linux/completion.h>
>
> #include <linux/bpf.h>
> #include <linux/btf.h>
> @@ -11,6 +12,7 @@
>
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cgroup_rstat_lock);
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(raw_spinlock_t, cgroup_rstat_cpu_lock);
> +static struct cgroup *cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher = NULL;
>
> static void cgroup_base_stat_flush(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu);
>
> @@ -279,17 +281,32 @@ __bpf_hook_end();
> * value -1 is used when obtaining the main lock else this is the CPU
> * number processed last.
> */
> -static inline void __cgroup_rstat_lock(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu_in_loop)
> +static inline bool __cgroup_rstat_trylock(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu_in_loop)
> +{
> + bool locked;
> +
> + locked = spin_trylock_irq(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> + if (!locked)
> + trace_cgroup_rstat_lock_contended(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, true);
> + else
> + trace_cgroup_rstat_locked(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, false);
> +
> + return locked;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void __cgroup_rstat_lock(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu_in_loop,
> + bool check_contention)
> __acquires(&cgroup_rstat_lock)
> {
> - bool contended;
> + bool locked = false;
>
> - contended = !spin_trylock_irq(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> - if (contended) {
> - trace_cgroup_rstat_lock_contended(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, contended);
> + if (check_contention)
> + locked = __cgroup_rstat_trylock(cgrp, cpu_in_loop);
> +
> + if (!locked) {
> spin_lock_irq(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> + trace_cgroup_rstat_locked(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, check_contention);
> }
> - trace_cgroup_rstat_locked(cgrp, cpu_in_loop, contended);
> }
I will let Tejun and others weigh in about what tracepoints we should
have going forward and how they should be structured (which also
includes patch 2). I see the tremendous value they have to collect
data from prod, but I do not see similar existing tracepoints, and I
am not sure if the branching here could have an effect when the
tracepoints are off.
>
> static inline void __cgroup_rstat_unlock(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu_in_loop)
> @@ -299,6 +316,53 @@ static inline void __cgroup_rstat_unlock(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu_in_loop)
> spin_unlock_irq(&cgroup_rstat_lock);
> }
>
> +#define MAX_WAIT msecs_to_jiffies(100)
> +/* Trylock helper that also checks for on ongoing flusher */
> +static bool cgroup_rstat_trylock_flusher(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> +{
> + struct cgroup *ongoing;
> + bool locked;
> +
> + /* Check if ongoing flusher is already taking care of this, if
nit: I think commonly the comment would start on a new line after /*.
> + * we are a descendant skip work, but wait for ongoing flusher
> + * to complete work.
> + */
> +retry:
> + ongoing = READ_ONCE(cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher);
> + if (ongoing && cgroup_is_descendant(cgrp, ongoing)) {
> + wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> + &ongoing->flush_done, MAX_WAIT);
> + /* TODO: Add tracepoint here */
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + locked = __cgroup_rstat_trylock(cgrp, -1);
> + if (!locked) {
> + /* Contended: Handle loosing race for ongoing flusher */
nit: losing
> + if (!ongoing && READ_ONCE(cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher))
> + goto retry;
> +
> + __cgroup_rstat_lock(cgrp, -1, false);
> + }
> + /* Obtained lock, record this cgrp as the ongoing flusher */
Do we want a comment here to explain why there could be an existing
ongoing flusher (i.e. due to multiple ongoing flushers)? I think it's
not super obvious.
> + ongoing = READ_ONCE(cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher);
> + if (!ongoing) {
> + reinit_completion(&cgrp->flush_done);
> + WRITE_ONCE(cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher, cgrp);
> + }
> + return true; /* locked */
Would it be better to explain the return value of the function in the
comment above it?
> +}
> +
> +static void cgroup_rstat_unlock_flusher(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> +{
> + /* Detect if we are the ongoing flusher */
I think this is a bit obvious.
> + if (cgrp == READ_ONCE(cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher)) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(cgrp_rstat_ongoing_flusher, NULL);
> + complete_all(&cgrp->flush_done);
> + }
> + __cgroup_rstat_unlock(cgrp, -1);
> +}
> +
> /* see cgroup_rstat_flush() */
> static void cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> __releases(&cgroup_rstat_lock) __acquires(&cgroup_rstat_lock)
> @@ -328,7 +392,7 @@ static void cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> __cgroup_rstat_unlock(cgrp, cpu);
> if (!cond_resched())
> cpu_relax();
> - __cgroup_rstat_lock(cgrp, cpu);
> + __cgroup_rstat_lock(cgrp, cpu, true);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -350,9 +414,11 @@ __bpf_kfunc void cgroup_rstat_flush(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> {
> might_sleep();
>
> - __cgroup_rstat_lock(cgrp, -1);
> + if (!cgroup_rstat_trylock_flusher(cgrp))
> + return;
> +
> cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(cgrp);
> - __cgroup_rstat_unlock(cgrp, -1);
> + cgroup_rstat_unlock_flusher(cgrp);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -368,8 +434,11 @@ void cgroup_rstat_flush_hold(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> __acquires(&cgroup_rstat_lock)
> {
> might_sleep();
> - __cgroup_rstat_lock(cgrp, -1);
> - cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(cgrp);
> +
> + if (cgroup_rstat_trylock_flusher(cgrp))
> + cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(cgrp);
> + else
> + __cgroup_rstat_lock(cgrp, -1, false);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -379,7 +448,7 @@ void cgroup_rstat_flush_hold(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> void cgroup_rstat_flush_release(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> __releases(&cgroup_rstat_lock)
> {
> - __cgroup_rstat_unlock(cgrp, -1);
> + cgroup_rstat_unlock_flusher(cgrp);
> }
>
> int cgroup_rstat_init(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> @@ -401,6 +470,8 @@ int cgroup_rstat_init(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> u64_stats_init(&rstatc->bsync);
> }
>
> + init_completion(&cgrp->flush_done);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
>
>
