Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1d13:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id pp19csp877849pxb; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKQ9wNi68Cdm/dxO+3nw6H6yifVi+V+W+hhvGH1hBR/vsvAl31NAlpGi5vZb0z0ezcW7pd X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c145:: with SMTP id r5mr18195822edp.253.1629405571135; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1629405571; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=GkXydCgiKQCLRM1rNMNOnZbOCHH5Oi6PyOWh3QN0wDXoVcah/gGritj3mmkRWoUPaV c/mjXTFv+nB/K2kChdxJUB2Hl89PbXpYDzVObz3+/veOiPosWmBtR6AfkNuP/3KGdMqQ n+M9P02yi4Dl+kjnkIPdQFXPz/RVeq/83MxD/7lAVBNZn0VCy/6cUW1Ru1j6ixoRrsOE R5SgVjmB0XclZ8dfYiwFVPoA3StpdNzH61MAvJAPioZdLt9LpLQ/dHPoMXiN6OUltu60 tQAPBFmXdKjEFnTWZxVZd/jeG+njiyIQH4KXyCzev7o7s5jW8LfWNBs7srdwW93OPXGU Bg7w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=H/v8jtp4MTdUHWsrgy0yYUi2ohESXHCLRr9KfdOGOGU=; b=h4Zgs6j/LM9/BOYqcLF0ClkPktfFeoo0zWcDMNUtqKANfvxJNYZcnPk9bCF4mt7ewe v3MBxdYUltVZOshvT2JbTY/MmXnfdvGD5CPKq1cf1wLX6yL8ZA0BrVMOVV8VzO4nJWcI DPne5e7WL3VCgXSKNqOwWsXhWnYwXzZWV5+rC8k6smzr0eTmWYy7gB08RTwLsmBhsuBJ TS+wKEXnnpZu+Va5peAu/4BzcAqMWkEB6E3IKawQDHcazi42qWEAgj4DbptHgQjfu8vB oFk0xFse3fmlrS6cNHRGYUO4xW4tRJCGDV12NCwFCS/edZmCvIrac1Xp4Jk355lpv6do jQrA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=X3sJinq0; 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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cmpxchg.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w7si4412394ejq.193.2021.08.19.13.39.05; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:39:31 -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; dkim=pass header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=X3sJinq0; 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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cmpxchg.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230052AbhHSUiA (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 16:38:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45110 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233085AbhHSUh7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 16:37:59 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 861A0C061575 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id n11so8640332qkk.1 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=H/v8jtp4MTdUHWsrgy0yYUi2ohESXHCLRr9KfdOGOGU=; b=X3sJinq0pDD/8IcMO4wwhfPnPyw3rNuV+72zNB5mcMP+5uSf8rC33okclSRDnV5fff L7FpVXiWwN6kVi1mm8yfgZaVorUvtR9kwdH/5bKkyHYtlbqgBoGR0H3oDPpUkSsTbCAo oJKuXgkgB1gxZfB/F64F4GTywyYi+yG8WIuudFyJPoKVkCSM9t0G21kBP2ON24sW5HZX 6AA9uAzy+DdAdC3lCJXMV80rVwwszeJOMPe8YMgwxpkjXiGrYzGioMd+VnKG1vB/jtW+ MvDkTXpKRo2jCBx/6ln3g0PmRfwz6bF3ZuJ2ZmqmQxvnim5j84oaJ6w0G3xXdBmsi9Dc vU4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=H/v8jtp4MTdUHWsrgy0yYUi2ohESXHCLRr9KfdOGOGU=; b=mEoCZWM216o6PznnUXc3TxwJ+gv/wMpsTdF/b/fA0IgKD2C+ShCCjuJWvzCka0mWqz bH5GdYDg0TpQgzkkzED/JylLYpUWb44Zfvp1uxiOwxkBMRfdfCid5p4c/yT8se2Gcimj OLyvZNrL7hhy4cq29M/lvh+8434j6V9IMjQc1gIbtGVpkSKXqtb44AX2Vd9IppX7dmys 3m3D1ZYC2/t8ii0FW+Gh/OLtTG9GjIS+PaGZmG1npK7UB9SGYSLrHo6lS1ymK3m6qX6J M10lx3ILWr9tRRAZqyeEpf0QmPyBJVBeCfspTE1luDkhGgCcgIZzagEg3NJiK9pGmQ5N u+Tw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YVj8vL+Nfju6k6P4+xlTL/hMMQmHsJ5sj/IZRfAdV6ZKN9+8i AI9AKo+NEKA1LItYxY6uIL1EGw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:941:: with SMTP id w1mr5410596qkw.434.1629405441687; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpe-98-15-154-102.hvc.res.rr.com. [98.15.154.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm372234qtq.78.2021.08.19.13.37.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 16:38:59 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Leon Yang , Chris Down , Roman Gushchin , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional memory.low reclaim Message-ID: References: <20210817180506.220056-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 05:01:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 17-08-21 14:05:06, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > We've noticed occasional OOM killing when memory.low settings are in > > effect for cgroups. This is unexpected and undesirable as memory.low > > is supposed to express non-OOMing memory priorities between cgroups. > > > > The reason for this is proportional memory.low reclaim. When cgroups > > are below their memory.low threshold, reclaim passes them over in the > > first round, and then retries if it couldn't find pages anywhere else. > > But when cgroups are slighly above their memory.low setting, page scan > > force is scaled down and diminished in proportion to the overage, to > > the point where it can cause reclaim to fail as well - only in that > > case we currently don't retry, and instead trigger OOM. > > > > To fix this, hook proportional reclaim into the same retry logic we > > have in place for when cgroups are skipped entirely. This way if > > reclaim fails and some cgroups were scanned with dimished pressure, > > we'll try another full-force cycle before giving up and OOMing. > > > > Reported-by: Leon Yang > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko Thanks > > Although I have to say that the code is quite tricky and it deserves > more comments. See below. > > [...] > > @@ -2576,6 +2578,15 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, > > * hard protection. > > */ > > unsigned long cgroup_size = mem_cgroup_size(memcg); > > + unsigned long protection; > > + > > + /* memory.low scaling, make sure we retry before OOM */ > > + if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim && low > min) { > > + protection = low; > > + sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1; > > + } else { > > + protection = min; > > + } > > Just by looking at this in isolation one could be really curious how > does this not break the low memory protection altogether. You're right, it's a bit too terse. > The logic is spread over 3 different places. > > Would something like the following be more understandable? > > /* > * Low limit protected memcgs are already excluded at > * a higher level (shrink_node_memcgs) but scaling > * down the reclaim target can result in hard to > * reclaim and premature OOM. We do not have a full > * picture here so we cannot really judge this > * sutuation here but pro-actively flag this scenario > * and let do_try_to_free_pages to retry if > * there is no progress. > */ I've been drafting around with this, but it seems to say the same thing as the comment I put into struct scan_control already: /* * Cgroup memory below memory.low is protected as long as we * don't threaten to OOM. If any cgroup is reclaimed at * reduced force or passed over entirely due to its memory.low * setting (memcg_low_skipped), and nothing is reclaimed as a * result, then go back back for one more cycle that reclaims * the protected memory (memcg_low_reclaim) to avert OOM. */ How about a brief version of this with a pointer to the original? diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 701106e1829c..c32d686719d5 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2580,7 +2580,12 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, unsigned long cgroup_size = mem_cgroup_size(memcg); unsigned long protection; - /* memory.low scaling, make sure we retry before OOM */ + /* + * Soft protection must not cause reclaim failure. Let + * the upper level know if we skipped pages during the + * first pass, so it can retry if necessary. See the + * struct scan_control definition of those flags. + */ if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim && low > min) { protection = low; sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1; @@ -2853,16 +2858,16 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) { /* - * Hard protection. - * If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM. + * Hard protection. Always respected. If there is not + * enough reclaimable memory elsewhere, it's an OOM. */ continue; } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg)) { /* - * Soft protection. - * Respect the protection only as long as - * there is an unprotected supply - * of reclaimable memory from other cgroups. + * Soft protection must not cause reclaim failure. Let + * the upper level know if we skipped pages during the + * first pass, so it can retry if necessary. See the + * struct scan_control definition of those flags. */ if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim) { sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1;