Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:06:42 +0100
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
CC: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: reset low limit during memcg offlining
Message-ID: <20170725120642.GA12635@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20170725114047.4073-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20170725115808.GE26723@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170725115808.GE26723@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2017 12:06:53.3777 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR15MB1073
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-07-25_06:,,
 signatures=0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1229
Lines: 27

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:58:08PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 25-07-17 12:40:47, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > A removed memory cgroup with a defined low limit and some belonging
> > pagecache has very low chances to be freed.
> > 
> > If a cgroup has been removed, there is likely no memory pressure inside
> > the cgroup, and the pagecache is protected from the external pressure
> > by the defined low limit. The cgroup will be freed only after
> > the reclaim of all belonging pages. And it will not happen until
> > there are any reclaimable memory in the system. That means,
> > there is a good chance, that a cold pagecache will reside
> > in the memory for an undefined amount of time, wasting
> > system resources.
> > 
> > Fix this issue by zeroing memcg->low during memcg offlining.
> 
> Very well spotted! This goes all the way down to low limit inclusion
> AFAICS. I would be even tempted to mark it for stable because hiding
> some memory from reclaim basically indefinitely is not good. We might
> have been just lucky nobody has noticed that yet.

I believe it's because there are not so many actual low limit users,
and those who do, are using some offstream patches to mitigate this issue.

Thanks!

Roman