Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:38:10 +0100
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
CC:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] memory.low,min reclaim
Message-ID: <20180423103804.GA12648@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180320223353.5673-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180422202612.127760-1-gthelen@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180422202612.127760-1-gthelen@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2018 10:38:21.0789 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4dfe8246-7a0b-47a4-2531-08d5a906564c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR15MB1073
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-04-23_05:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi, Greg!

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 01:26:10PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> Roman's previously posted memory.low,min patches add per memcg effective
> low limit to detect overcommitment of parental limits.  But if we flip
> low,min reclaim to bail if usage<{low,min} at any level, then we don't need
> an effective low limit, which makes the code simpler.  When parent limits
> are overcommited memory.min will oom kill, which is more drastic but makes
> the memory.low a simpler concept.  If memcg a/b wants oom kill before
> reclaim, then give it to them.  It seems a bit strange for a/b/memory.low's
> behaviour to depend on a/c/memory.low (i.e. a/b.low is strong unless
> a/b.low+a/c.low exceed a.low).

It's actually not strange: a/b and a/c are sharing a common resource:
a/memory.low.

Exactly as a/b/memory.max and a/c/memory.max are sharing a/memory.max.
If there are sibling cgroups which are consuming memory, a cgroup can't
exceed parent's memory.max, even if its memory.max is grater.

> 
> I think there might be a simpler way (ableit it doesn't yet include
> Documentation):
> - memcg: fix memory.low
> - memcg: add memory.min
>  3 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> The idea of this alternate approach is for memory.low,min to avoid reclaim
> if any portion of under-consideration memcg ancestry is under respective
> limit.

This approach has a significant downside: it breaks hierarchical constraints
for memory.low/min. There are two important outcomes:

1) Any leaf's memory.low/min value is respected, even if parent's value
   is lower or even 0. It's not possible anymore to limit the amount of
   protected memory for a sub-tree.
   This is especially bad in case of delegation.

2) If a cgroup has an ancestor with the usage under its memory.low/min,
   it becomes protection, even if its memory.low/min is 0. So it becomes
   impossible to have unprotected cgroups in protected sub-tree.

Thanks!