[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] mm/memcontrol: allow to uncharge page without using page->lru field
On Wed 05-07-17 10:35:29, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 03-07-17 17:14:14, Jérôme Glisse wrote:
> > > HMM pages (private or public device pages) are ZONE_DEVICE page and
> > > thus you can not use page->lru fields of those pages. This patch
> > > re-arrange the uncharge to allow single page to be uncharge without
> > > modifying the lru field of the struct page.
> > >
> > > There is no change to memcontrol logic, it is the same as it was
> > > before this patch.
> >
> > What is the memcg semantic of the memory? Why is it even charged? AFAIR
> > this is not a reclaimable memory. If yes how are we going to deal with
> > memory limits? What should happen if go OOM? Does killing an process
> > actually help to release that memory? Isn't it pinned by a device?
> >
> > For the patch itself. It is quite ugly but I haven't spotted anything
> > obviously wrong with it. It is the memcg semantic with this class of
> > memory which makes me worried.
> So i am facing 3 choices. First one not account device memory at all.
> Second one is account device memory like any other memory inside a
> process. Third one is account device memory as something entirely new.
> I pick the second one for two reasons. First because when migrating
> back from device memory it means that migration can not fail because
> of memory cgroup limit, this simplify an already complex migration
> code. Second because i assume that device memory usage is a transient
> state ie once device is done with its computation the most likely
> outcome is memory is migrated back. From this assumption it means
> that you do not want to allow a process to overuse regular memory
> while it is using un-accounted device memory. It sounds safer to
> account device memory and to keep the process within its memcg
> boundary.
> Admittedly here i am making an assumption and i can be wrong. Thing
> is we do not have enough real data of how this will be use and how
> much of an impact device memory will have. That is why for now i
> would rather restrict myself to either not account it or account it
> as usual.
> If you prefer not accounting it until we have more experience on how
> it is use and how it impacts memory resource management i am fine with
> that too. It will make the migration code slightly more complex.

I can see why you want to do this but the semantic _has_ to be clear.
And as such make sure that the exiting task will simply unpin and
invalidate all the device memory (assuming this memory is not shared
which I am not sure is even possible).
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-10 10:28    [W:0.149 / U:3.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site