Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:a0d1:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp2971909pxa; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:06:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaXpOAYlS5Tl/OPumI/YW5XqI1f61qnqfDJquF4Nxq4XLDz6y+c8OMrXwD9IwU8KeoE35h X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ce98:: with SMTP id y24mr19016308edv.76.1597745207183; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:06:47 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1597745207; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=wD6E8x7ItG7zLrkcXuykxzgDOTtDK90vRrvkdbbHiXc/6llISPewyvUW9xe/Jl/T21 Ch5ApRb2Yr5ekPeqbCyS8FDQStWBL0dw3sY7yfaIhT3CELT81SKPcvrvc5myBVr8qeYu cGQsy88xdgMvswQoc+xSLBua110ZrG9R//h1mhFqDw0SGF92SgzudWXDEGjSbo0Cv8tN O5lc/e+AG//gQg2QGxwAbwz2i+SVCUQbBj1uSiKFExsFJbBHHqlF5O8UKZBS2GzsbPeB +1cV8mWTFWBT0J7TRXw7Q78XTnoRI96Vy3Qlfnznryc5jArfvAy1rW7LjQ7ZqmNqDqCH bifQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=6sht88NVaWFjxard5mK6n+ooAnq6oqbTWK4XVaQKZHo=; b=KdNVnIpyd++jOoXi6Jer/GgMOTezoOQ1X87nlaYbhH80zJYhaZ9loPSJU9b1KMAk7N ZXv/E5Tygp+IGnK3qdFw66oZq03z+KiqMwJpXMBVAXJ4elabm8TQNDWBmqJWDsIKv/hg eSleAybUQKqVzmw6A/Gsnr4D7fEcnQYd/hVfWpOkfKxQaGxo+JvOgiA1rntS2aBpy6r9 CSY9Pa8HGupW2qyB3psHPz39U3dNzRcZbjlTe7ZUtAsmpCI8C6FCz8xE6D5b9h89Emhi MpiOMoSJveZhh6owh4tADv4krkQYqMIHMtZRsBX6H8bIfV3mXMNk2jR1m4cWd4WrnEPk Pr0w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m4si13195579edr.500.2020.08.18.03.06.23; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:06:47 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726707AbgHRKFT (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:05:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47112 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726043AbgHRKFT (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:05:19 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6F9B12C; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:05:16 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: peterz@infradead.org Cc: Waiman Long , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Jonathan Corbet , Alexey Dobriyan , Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control Message-ID: <20200818100516.GO28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200817140831.30260-1-longman@redhat.com> <20200818091453.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200818092617.GN28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200818095910.GM2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200818095910.GM2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 18-08-20 11:59:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 18-08-20 11:14:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:08:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > Memory controller can be used to control and limit the amount of > > > > physical memory used by a task. When a limit is set in "memory.high" in > > > > a v2 non-root memory cgroup, the memory controller will try to reclaim > > > > memory if the limit has been exceeded. Normally, that will be enough > > > > to keep the physical memory consumption of tasks in the memory cgroup > > > > to be around or below the "memory.high" limit. > > > > > > > > Sometimes, memory reclaim may not be able to recover memory in a rate > > > > that can catch up to the physical memory allocation rate. In this case, > > > > the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing. > > > > > > Then slow down the allocator? That's what we do for dirty pages too, we > > > slow down the dirtier when we run against the limits. > > > > This is what we actually do. Have a look at mem_cgroup_handle_over_high. > > But then how can it run-away like Waiman suggested? As Chris mentioned in other reply. This functionality is quite new. > /me goes look... and finds MEMCG_MAX_HIGH_DELAY_JIFFIES. We can certainly tune a different backoff delays but I suspect this is not the problem here. > That's a fail... :-( -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs