[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm: pages for hugetlb's overcommit may be able to charge to memcg
On Thu 24-05-18 13:26:12, TSUKADA Koutaro wrote:
> I do not know if it is really a strong use case, but I will explain my
> motive in detail. English is not my native language, so please pardon
> my poor English.
> I am one of the developers for software that managing the resource used
> from user job at HPC-Cluster with Linux. The resource is memory mainly.
> The HPC-Cluster may be shared by multiple people and used. Therefore, the
> memory used by each user must be strictly controlled, otherwise the
> user's job will runaway, not only will it hamper the other users, it will
> crash the entire system in OOM.
> Some users of HPC are very nervous about performance. Jobs are executed
> while synchronizing with MPI communication using multiple compute nodes.
> Since CPU wait time will occur when synchronizing, they want to minimize
> the variation in execution time at each node to reduce waiting times as
> much as possible. We call this variation a noise.
> THP does not guarantee to use the Huge Page, but may use the normal page.
> This mechanism is one cause of variation(noise).
> The users who know this mechanism will be hesitant to use THP. However,
> the users also know the benefits of the Huge Page's TLB hit rate
> performance, and the Huge Page seems to be attractive. It seems natural
> that these users are interested in HugeTLBfs, I do not know at all
> whether it is the right approach or not.

Sure, asking for guarantee makes hugetlb pages attractive. But nothing
is really for free, especially any resource _guarantee_, and you have to
pay an additional configuration price usually.

> At the very least, our HPC system is pursuing high versatility and we
> have to consider whether we can provide it if users want to use HugeTLBfs.
> In order to use HugeTLBfs we need to create a persistent pool, but in
> our use case sharing nodes, it would be impossible to create, delete or
> resize the pool.

Why? I can see this would be quite a PITA but not really impossible.

> One of the answers I have reached is to use HugeTLBfs by overcommitting
> without creating a pool(this is the surplus hugepage).
> Surplus hugepages is hugetlb page, but I think at least that consuming
> buddy pool is a decisive difference from hugetlb page of persistent pool.
> If nr_overcommit_hugepages is assumed to be infinite, allocating pages for
> surplus hugepages from buddy pool is all unlimited even if being limited
> by memcg.

Not really, you can specify how much you can overcommit hugetlb pages.

> In extreme cases, overcommitment will allow users to exhaust
> the entire memory of the system. Of course, this can be prevented by the
> hugetlb cgroup, but even if we set the limit for memcg and hugetlb cgroup
> respectively, as I asked in the first mail(set limit to 10GB), the
> control will not work.
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-24 10:28    [W:0.079 / U:6.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site