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;
Date:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:41:40 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates
Message-ID: <YDNuRFgJPH4bPEbq@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1613584277.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
 <e269f5df3af1157232b01a9b0dae3edf4880d786.1613584277.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
 <YC+B2KvJVSgfVDTe@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <1ecd277e-c236-08e1-f068-3dd65ee0e640@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1ecd277e-c236-08e1-f068-3dd65ee0e640@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 19-02-21 11:28:47, Tim Chen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/19/21 1:16 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Something like this?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> index 8bddee75f5cb..b50cae3b2a1a 100644
> >> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> @@ -3472,6 +3472,14 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order,
> >>                 if (!mz)
> >>                         break;
> >>
> >> +               /*
> >> +                * Soft limit tree is updated based on memcg events sampling.
> >> +                * We could have missed some updates on page uncharge and
> >> +                * the cgroup is below soft limit.  Skip useless soft reclaim.
> >> +                */
> >> +               if (!soft_limit_excess(mz->memcg))
> >> +                       continue;
> >> +
> >>                 nr_scanned = 0;
> >>                 reclaimed = mem_cgroup_soft_reclaim(mz->memcg, pgdat,
> > 
> > Yes I meant something like this but then I have looked more closely and
> > this shouldn't be needed afterall. __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node
> > already does all the work
> >         if (!soft_limit_excess(mz->memcg) ||
> >             !css_tryget(&mz->memcg->css))
> >                 goto retry;
> > so this shouldn't really happen.
> > 
> 
> Ah, that's true.  The added check for soft_limit_excess is not needed.
> 
> Do you think it is still a good idea to add patch 3 to
> restrict the uncharge update in page batch of the same node and cgroup?

I would rather drop it. The less the soft limit reclaim code is spread
around the better.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs