lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch -mm] mm, memcg: evaluate root and leaf memcgs fairly on oom
Hello, David!

Overall I like this idea.
Some questions below.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:21:09PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> There are several downsides to the current implementation that compares
> the root mem cgroup with leaf mem cgroups for the cgroup-aware oom killer.
>
> For example, /proc/pid/oom_score_adj is accounted for processes attached
> to the root mem cgroup but not leaves. This leads to wild inconsistencies
> that unfairly bias for or against the root mem cgroup.
>
> Assume a 728KB bash shell is attached to the root mem cgroup without any
> other processes having a non-default /proc/pid/oom_score_adj. At the time
> of system oom, the root mem cgroup evaluated to 43,474 pages after boot.
> If the bash shell adjusts its /proc/self/oom_score_adj to 1000, however,
> the root mem cgroup evaluates to 24,765,482 pages lol. It would take a
> cgroup 95GB of memory to outweigh the root mem cgroup's evaluation.
>
> The reverse is even more confusing: if the bash shell adjusts its
> /proc/self/oom_score_adj to -999, the root mem cgroup evaluates to 42,268
> pages, a basically meaningless transformation.
>
> /proc/pid/oom_score_adj is discounted, however, for processes attached to
> leaf mem cgroups. If a sole process using 250MB of memory is attached to
> a mem cgroup, it evaluates to 250MB >> PAGE_SHIFT. If its
> /proc/pid/oom_score_adj is changed to -999, or even 1000, the evaluation
> remains the same for the mem cgroup.
>
> The heuristic that is used for the root mem cgroup also differs from leaf
> mem cgroups.
>
> For the root mem cgroup, the evaluation is the sum of all process's
> /proc/pid/oom_score. Besides factoring in oom_score_adj, it is based on
> the sum of rss + swap + page tables for all processes attached to it.
> For leaf mem cgroups, it is based on the amount of anonymous or
> unevictable memory + unreclaimable slab + kernel stack + sock + swap.
>
> There's also an exemption for root mem cgroup processes that do not
> intersect the allocating process's mems_allowed. Because the current
> heuristic is based on oom_badness(), the evaluation of the root mem
> cgroup disregards all processes attached to it that have disjoint
> mems_allowed making oom selection specifically dependant on the
> allocating process for system oom conditions!
>
> This patch introduces completely fair comparison between the root mem
> cgroup and leaf mem cgroups. It compares them with the same heuristic
> and does not prefer one over the other. It disregards oom_score_adj
> as the cgroup-aware oom killer should, if enabled by memory.oom_policy.
> The goal is to target the most memory consuming cgroup on the system,
> not consider per-process adjustment.
>
> The fact that the evaluation of all mem cgroups depends on the mempolicy
> of the allocating process, which is completely undocumented for the
> cgroup-aware oom killer, will be addressed in a subsequent patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---
> Based on top of oom policy patch series at
> https://marc.info/?t=152090280800001
>
> Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt | 7 +-
> mm/memcontrol.c | 147 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> --- a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> @@ -1328,12 +1328,7 @@ OOM killer to kill all processes attached to the cgroup, except processes
> with /proc/pid/oom_score_adj set to -1000 (oom disabled).
>
> The root cgroup is treated as a leaf memory cgroup as well, so it is
> -compared with other leaf memory cgroups. Due to internal implementation
> -restrictions the size of the root cgroup is the cumulative sum of
> -oom_badness of all its tasks (in other words oom_score_adj of each task
> -is obeyed). Relying on oom_score_adj (apart from OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN) can
> -lead to over- or underestimation of the root cgroup consumption and it is
> -therefore discouraged. This might change in the future, however.
> +compared with other leaf memory cgroups.
>
> Please, note that memory charges are not migrating if tasks
> are moved between different memory cgroups. Moving tasks with
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -94,6 +94,8 @@ int do_swap_account __read_mostly;
> #define do_swap_account 0
> #endif
>
> +static atomic_long_t total_sock_pages;
> +
> /* Whether legacy memory+swap accounting is active */
> static bool do_memsw_account(void)
> {
> @@ -2607,9 +2609,9 @@ static inline bool memcg_has_children(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> }
>
> static long memcg_oom_badness(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> - const nodemask_t *nodemask,
> - unsigned long totalpages)
> + const nodemask_t *nodemask)
> {
> + const bool is_root_memcg = memcg == root_mem_cgroup;
> long points = 0;
> int nid;
> pg_data_t *pgdat;
> @@ -2618,92 +2620,65 @@ static long memcg_oom_badness(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> if (nodemask && !node_isset(nid, *nodemask))
> continue;
>
> - points += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
> - LRU_ALL_ANON | BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
> -
> pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
> - points += lruvec_page_state(mem_cgroup_lruvec(pgdat, memcg),
> - NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE);
> + if (is_root_memcg) {
> + points += node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> + node_page_state(pgdat, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
> + points += node_page_state(pgdat, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE);
> + } else {
> + points += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
> + LRU_ALL_ANON);
> + points += lruvec_page_state(mem_cgroup_lruvec(pgdat, memcg),
> + NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE);
> + }
> }
>
> - points += memcg_page_state(memcg, MEMCG_KERNEL_STACK_KB) /
> - (PAGE_SIZE / 1024);
> - points += memcg_page_state(memcg, MEMCG_SOCK);
> - points += memcg_page_state(memcg, MEMCG_SWAP);
> -
> + if (is_root_memcg) {
> + points += global_zone_page_state(NR_KERNEL_STACK_KB) /
> + (PAGE_SIZE / 1024);
> + points += atomic_long_read(&total_sock_pages);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTW, where do we change this counter?

I also doubt that global atomic variable can work here,
we probably need something better scaling.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 13:18    [W:0.254 / U:2.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site