Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200507204913.18661-1-shakeelb@google.com> <CALOAHbAHK4b2p0oWXY6oHG+WQzK3+TEa46=dPabhYT8ab=65zA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALvZod7VujYgU=6XfgjSZnzLqDpbHwEYsp2Xbq9MK7w_z=LphA@mail.gmail.com> <20200508133833.GA181181@cmpxchg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200508133833.GA181181@cmpxchg.org>
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 14:53:14 +0800
Message-ID: <CALOAHbBPZgqS47e=TMCP8yas5kV7MrscZYEgH+sBO1JzXgPh_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: consistent update to pgsteal and pgscan
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:38 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:25:14AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:34 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:49 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One way to measure the efficiency of memory reclaim is to look at the
> > > > ratio (pgscan+pfrefill)/pgsteal. However at the moment these stats are
> > > > not updated consistently at the system level and the ratio of these are
> > > > not very meaningful. The pgsteal and pgscan are updated for only global
> > > > reclaim while pgrefill gets updated for global as well as cgroup
> > > > reclaim.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Shakeel,
> > >
> > > We always use pgscan and pgsteal for monitoring the system level
> > > memory pressure, for example, by using sysstat(sar) or some other
> > > monitor tools.
>
> I'm in the same boat. It's useful to have activity that happens purely
> due to machine capacity rather than localized activity that happens
> due to the limits throughout the cgroup tree.
>

Hi Johannes,

When I used PSI to monitor memory pressure, I found there's the same
behavoir in PSI that /proc/pressure/{memroy, IO} can be very large due
to some limited cgroups rather the machine capacity.
Should we separate /proc/pressure/XXX from /sys/fs/cgroup/XXX.pressure
as well ? Then /proc/pressure/XXX only indicate the pressure due to
machine capacity and /sys/fs/cgroup/XXX.presssure show the pressure
throughout the cgroup tree.

Besides that, there's another difference between /proc/pressure/XXX
and /sys/fs/cgroup/XXX.pressure, which is when you disable the psi
(i.e. psi=n) /proc/pressure/ will disapear but
/sys/fs/cgroup/XXX.pressure still exist.  If we separate them, this
difference will be reasonable.

> > Don't you need pgrefill in addition to pgscan and pgsteal to get the
> > full picture of the reclaim activity?
>
> I actually almost never look at pgrefill.
>
> > > But with this change, these two counters include the memcg pressure as
> > > well. It is not easy to know whether the pgscan and pgsteal are caused
> > > by system level pressure or only some specific memcgs reaching their
> > > memory limit.
> > >
> > > How about adding  cgroup_reclaim() to pgrefill as well ?
> > >
> >
> > I am looking for all the reclaim activity on the system. Adding
> > !cgroup_reclaim to pgrefill will skip the cgroup reclaim activity.
> > Maybe adding pgsteal_cgroup and pgscan_cgroup would be better.
>
> How would you feel about adding memory.stat at the root cgroup level?
>
> There are subtle differences between /proc/vmstat and memory.stat, and
> cgroup-aware code that wants to watch the full hierarchy currently has
> to know about these intricacies and translate semantics back and forth.
>
> Generally having the fully recursive memory.stat at the root level
> could help a broader range of usecases.


-- 
Thanks
Yafang