summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/lib
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorChris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>2020-08-06 23:21:54 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2020-08-07 11:33:25 -0700
commitb3ff92916af3b458712110bb83976a23471c12fa (patch)
tree52c639558aa04dcccefa2f0d63770ea8812cc573 /lib
parent536d3bf261a2fc3b05b3e91e7eef7383443015cf (diff)
downloadlinux-b3ff92916af3b458712110bb83976a23471c12fa.tar.bz2
mm, memcg: reclaim more aggressively before high allocator throttling
Patch series "mm, memcg: reclaim harder before high throttling", v2. This patch (of 2): In Facebook production, we've seen cases where cgroups have been put into allocator throttling even when they appear to have a lot of slack file caches which should be trivially reclaimable. Looking more closely, the problem is that we only try a single cgroup reclaim walk for each return to usermode before calculating whether or not we should throttle. This single attempt doesn't produce enough pressure to shrink for cgroups with a rapidly growing amount of file caches prior to entering allocator throttling. As an example, we see that threads in an affected cgroup are stuck in allocator throttling: # for i in $(cat cgroup.threads); do > grep over_high "/proc/$i/stack" > done [<0>] mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x10b/0x150 [<0>] mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x10b/0x150 [<0>] mem_cgroup_handle_over_high+0x10b/0x150 ...however, there is no I/O pressure reported by PSI, despite a lot of slack file pages: # cat memory.pressure some avg10=78.50 avg60=84.99 avg300=84.53 total=5702440903 full avg10=78.50 avg60=84.99 avg300=84.53 total=5702116959 # cat io.pressure some avg10=0.00 avg60=0.00 avg300=0.00 total=78051391 full avg10=0.00 avg60=0.00 avg300=0.00 total=78049640 # grep _file memory.stat inactive_file 1370939392 active_file 661635072 This patch changes the behaviour to retry reclaim either until the current task goes below the 10ms grace period, or we are making no reclaim progress at all. In the latter case, we enter reclaim throttling as before. To a user, there's no intuitive reason for the reclaim behaviour to differ from hitting memory.high as part of a new allocation, as opposed to hitting memory.high because someone lowered its value. As such this also brings an added benefit: it unifies the reclaim behaviour between the two. There's precedent for this behaviour: we already do reclaim retries when writing to memory.{high,max}, in max reclaim, and in the page allocator itself. Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1594640214.git.chris@chrisdown.name Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/a4e23b59e9ef499b575ae73a8120ee089b7d3373.1594640214.git.chris@chrisdown.name Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'lib')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions