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: <20200508170630.94406-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20200508214405.GA226164@cmpxchg.org>
 <CALvZod5VHHUV+_AXs4+5sLOPGyxm709kQ1q=uHMPVxW8pwXZ=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200515082955.GJ29153@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200515132421.GC591266@cmpxchg.org>
 <CALvZod7SdgXv0Dmm3q5H=EH4dzg8pXZenMUaDObfoRv5EX-Pkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200515150026.GA94522@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <CALvZod5EHzK-UzS9WgkzpZ2T+WwA8LottxrTzUi3qFwvUbOk4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200515180920.GC94522@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200515180920.GC94522@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 17:06:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod66QciDUGu3LTkL1MMDmaF=kq_AppoCH0zROj3p4fPbzw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: expose root cgroup's memory.stat
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.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 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:49:22AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:00 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 06:44:44AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:24 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:29:55AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat 09-05-20 07:06:38, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:44 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:06:30AM -0700, Shakeel Butt 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please note that this difference is only for system level vmstats. The
> > > > > > > > > cgroup stats returned by memory.stat are actually consistent. The
> > > > > > > > > cgroup's pgsteal contains number of reclaimed pages for global as well
> > > > > > > > > as cgroup reclaim. So, one way to get the system level stats is to get
> > > > > > > > > these stats from root's memory.stat, so, expose memory.stat for the root
> > > > > > > > > cgroup.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >       from Johannes Weiner:
> > > > > > > > >       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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we have those subtle differences documented please?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >       Generally having the fully recursive memory.stat at the root
> > > > > > > > >       level could help a broader range of usecases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The changelog begs the question why we don't just "fix" the
> > > > > > > > system-level stats. It may be useful to include the conclusions from
> > > > > > > > that discussion, and why there is value in keeping the stats this way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right. Andrew, can you please add the following para to the changelog?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why not fix the stats by including both the global and cgroup reclaim
> > > > > > > activity instead of exposing root cgroup's memory.stat? The reason is
> > > > > > > the benefit of having metrics exposing the activity that happens
> > > > > > > purely due to machine capacity rather than localized activity that
> > > > > > > happens due to the limits throughout the cgroup tree. Additionally
> > > > > > > there are userspace tools like sysstat(sar) which reads these stats to
> > > > > > > inform about the system level reclaim activity. So, we should not
> > > > > > > break such use-cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was quite surprised that the patch is so simple TBH. For some reason
> > > > > > I've still had memories that we do not account for root memcg (likely
> > > > > > because mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg) bail out in the try_charge. But stats
> > > > > > are slightly different here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, we skip the page_counter for root, but keep in mind that cgroup1
> > > > > *does* have a root-level memory.stat, so (for the most part) we've
> > > > > been keeping consumer stats for the root level the whole time.
> > > > >
> > > > > > counters because they are not really all the same. E.g.
> > > > > > - mem_cgroup_charge_statistics accounts for each memcg
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, that's heritage from cgroup1.
> > > > >
> > > > > > - memcg_charge_kernel_stack relies on pages being associated with a
> > > > > >   memcg and that in turn relies on __memcg_kmem_charge_page which bails
> > > > > >   out on root memcg
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right. It should only bypass the page_counter, but still set
> > > > > page->mem_cgroup = root_mem_cgroup, just like user pages.
> > >
> > > What about kernel threads? We consider them belonging to the root memory
> > > cgroup. Should their memory consumption being considered in root-level stats?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure we really want it, but I guess we need to document how
> > > kernel threads are handled.
> > >
> >
> > What will be the cons of updating root-level stats for kthreads?
>
> It makes total sense for stacks, but not much for the slab memory.
> Because it's really "some part of the total slab memory, which is
> accounted on the memcg level". And it comes with some performance
> overhead.
>
> I'm not really opposing any solution, just saying we need to document
> what's included into this statistics and what not.
>

Yes, I agree. I will explore which stats it makes sense and for which
it does not.