tree 52c639558aa04dcccefa2f0d63770ea8812cc573
parent 536d3bf261a2fc3b05b3e91e7eef7383443015cf
author Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> 1596781314 -0700
committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 1596825205 -0700

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>