Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220331084151.2600229-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <20220331173350.1fe09370479a4a6f916b477d@linux-foundation.org> <CAAPL-u-_Da0qe7h_o70HCz4gPtjT8_bjx4rVNdgKZh3KNruzpA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAPL-u-_Da0qe7h_o70HCz4gPtjT8_bjx4rVNdgKZh3KNruzpA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 02:17:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkarUYM6fjty8FXn9gtR=RVWgksa3LNwswi1Ug1LPnLt4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface
To:     Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 8:38 PM Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:33 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:41:51 +0000 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -6355,6 +6355,38 @@ static ssize_t memory_oom_group_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> > >       return nbytes;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> > > +                           size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(of_css(of));
> > > +     unsigned int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> > > +     unsigned long nr_to_reclaim, nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > > +     int err;
> > > +
> > > +     buf = strstrip(buf);
> > > +     err = page_counter_memparse(buf, "", &nr_to_reclaim);
> > > +     if (err)
> > > +             return err;
> > > +
> > > +     while (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim) {
> > > +             unsigned long reclaimed;
> > > +
> > > +             if (signal_pending(current))
> > > +                     break;
> > > +
> > > +             reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> > > +                                             nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed,
> > > +                                             GFP_KERNEL, true);
> > > +
> > > +             if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
> > > +                     break;
> > > +
> > > +             nr_reclaimed += reclaimed;
> > > +     }
> >
> > Is there any way in which this can be provoked into triggering the
> > softlockup detector?
>
> memory.reclaim is similar to memory.high w.r.t. reclaiming memory,
> except that memory.reclaim is stateless, while the kernel remembers
> the state set by memory.high.  So memory.reclaim should not bring in
> any new risks of triggering soft lockup, if any.
>
> > Is it optimal to do the MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES loop in the kernel?
> > Would additional flexibility be gained by letting userspace handle
> > retrying?
>
> I agree it is better to retry from the userspace.

Thanks Andrew and Wei for looking at this. IIUC the
MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES loop was modeled after the loop in memory.high as
well. Is there a reason why it should be different here?