The patch titled
Subject: mm, memcg: avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
mm-memcg-avoid-stale-protection-values-when-cgroup-is-above-protection.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-memcg-avoid-stale-protection-values-when-cgroup-is-above-protection.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-memcg-avoid-stale-protection-values-when-cgroup-is-above-protection.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm, memcg: avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection
Patch series "mm: memcontrol: memory.{low,min} reclaim fix & cleanup".
This series contains a fix for a edge case in my earlier protection
calculation patches, and a patch to make the area overall a little more
robust to hopefully help avoid this in future.
This patch (of 2):
A cgroup can have both memory protection and a memory limit to isolate it
from its siblings in both directions - for example, to prevent it from
being shrunk below 2G under high pressure from outside, but also from
growing beyond 4G under low pressure.
Commit 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim")
implemented proportional scan pressure so that multiple siblings in excess
of their protection settings don't get reclaimed equally but instead in
accordance to their unprotected portion.
During limit reclaim, this proportionality shouldn't apply of course:
there is no competition, all pressure is from within the cgroup and should
be applied as such. Reclaim should operate at full efficiency.
However, mem_cgroup_protected() never expected anybody to look at the
effective protection values when it indicated that the cgroup is above its
protection. As a result, a query during limit reclaim may return stale
protection values that were calculated by a previous reclaim cycle in
which the cgroup did have siblings.
When this happens, reclaim is unnecessarily hesitant and potentially slow
to meet the desired limit. In theory this could lead to premature OOM
kills, although it's not obvious this has occurred in practice.
[hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx: rework code comment]
[hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx: changelog]
[chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: fix store tear]
[chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: retitle]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1588092152.git.chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/d454fca5d6b38b74d8dc35141e8519b02089a698.1588092152.git.chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim")
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c~mm-memcg-avoid-stale-protection-values-when-cgroup-is-above-protection
+++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -6392,8 +6392,19 @@ enum mem_cgroup_protection mem_cgroup_pr
if (!root)
root = root_mem_cgroup;
- if (memcg == root)
+ if (memcg == root) {
+ /*
+ * The cgroup is the reclaim root in this reclaim
+ * cycle, and therefore not protected. But it may have
+ * stale effective protection values from previous
+ * cycles in which it was not the reclaim root - for
+ * example, global reclaim followed by limit reclaim.
+ * Reset these values for mem_cgroup_protection().
+ */
+ WRITE_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin, 0);
+ WRITE_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow, 0);
return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
+ }
usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
if (!usage)
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx are
mm-memcg-fix-error-return-value-of-mem_cgroup_css_alloc.patch
mm-memcg-avoid-stale-protection-values-when-cgroup-is-above-protection.patch
