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;
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 15:51:07 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
CC:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, "Hocko, Michal" <mhocko@suse.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
        "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion
Message-ID: <Y1o4a0HzYTZRArhU@feng-clx>
References: <20221026074343.6517-1-feng.tang@intel.com>
 <dc453287-015d-fd1c-fe7f-6ee45772d6aa@linux.ibm.com>
 <Y1jpDfwBQId3GkJC@feng-clx>
 <Y1j7tsj5M0Md/+Er@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <Y1kl8VbPE0RYdyEB@feng-clx>
 <Y1lZV6qHp3gIINGc@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAHbLzkppDPm87dx9-a7t3oP9DuZ0xCPC1UWr+E-s+vh12Gwb+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1ovOeEPXT1fxCuc@feng-clx>
 <87k04lk8vr.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87k04lk8vr.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?Gd0HFP2NywL4LYdwg92Dj5sADTmgd5BbuJqHN6egjFdLt6sH6AuoPeVOXbvA?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?LlzB4V6QVcUOqTAeKKsIddd6DKNVrQo6nnLnAGcsIEFoAEsmwYKss+BG6/KS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?6t48v6UFwExs/VbvIMAk90LKCI028fVhh5FllwWaccMOAQRxvv8Shuezvbcf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?zJ62ccoF5Flv0hhRDz0znS8C3/Mxq8m9OPChNKxOMEKVHZl9eL1ADuqqhd+Z?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?gq01QeoYeAN7FHbxLL04xm5pJ6EOJMgWchB3eTwi2qq9sIggNVaak7Kfnjua?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rzMGc7k1ZRb5AmO3z4LJtuGOIdSkmm2P4eCMCS3ayPE1MLgwAHfNXrIIYv6d?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?kPxFXBSgPD7QAkF4gEBRT7P6SXJ1EwOTln6jfqtSj3ICwbYZpLhO9x3PMjx3?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?swKtv1QqMtmyCYtPDkHe+VEH26xvuZzfj8LU9dgvKjpn3Xp7O6H8j9wt3578?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?COEmW1MmlzfRWNNV0kL8SteZJEc40ymdrjTlwWlrjz+OseGrfPa91ArewbUl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?aSp9cO70YAcFc/jEVDqGs/YCmDG0FGmrJYWtqaY/7tTMpwtcS/IuD66x31uY?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Z3Er/WB9uWMa4sKj+lMa1tDkNpwP90ECEVwl3vY8q1Tn5PDWSN+xXWvVyM29?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?J3IRpNN5T1g7dm9yegJhNk09JDub0imlYjS6fKi75n9OX2T5Yk8Ixq+YZZm2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?6nP2J34DVptYeuEoiy09mNbF8iWN/+TP8uCdj21Yn50QN82ghxcJ0BahrXTc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?QrWBtl/1sHiYXzc7UbnnIGnS8ia6qw9Ezo/6CnOEam7N/j+8Brq17ZehjUlH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?MGxhVVw0BRWQrfPyfV36/muIFn99DajTdf30wbnNh6dpks59XlNB7yylanVj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?md6wKtVDIUKRC/e1Yp3UOeOMqT3VALvHIsc5JZfs9H6sVQBmPqVzvCgaC6we?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BZ8JcCSbEyBHxPcrRFkWDgx+l7Tj5m7wSJQu1Z8MrCTrPwW7TgzkRmahxR7T?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?HTR0xUskp9BhK9UypC5D8WwnrpleBkcukKA3SnxwQIGVmZPpjqWZComJhL+8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?UcPBBoJuBtU367lvZe8AU+Z5hITHw9CeobT2Y7E43JZZq4gVFDWf1vkmPKJP?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?EWWzjA7/JQAiXDDgk+JLYvAqN6o6AdgmkbFR8rp4MWKjkShEvZwx1lOM279Z?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?y0EGc9Vi3jIa6Elib2EhB3KN7S8eaoQRMAfMQfNiXo7trvZKKpS73unCo5v1?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?sTrDnV8Fk1NTjkzU/rGJ4ghU3qMY5gqZ7MuSHBW5Ch+VvPVG6JDnaiB+kHDZ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Lc0JGF8JbFk2tCsOruB3e/cBhCmn02c9wX2VCXlZAO4H6e16L9GH5F/Ft7Ph?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?f/C3vISaZirWIouMrMNjQ6U9mceBCVtWnRtKGf0dKQT5FIg/RK28Tr6Y5y96?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Ol1DflUKu3qM6vw5K2Wo9RV+TUazhCvBxhsezwFIozOCFYJNHCHQOAShOnT7?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?alS32xAsFRLnYa8r8Z6r1VJfVQCkOP1Eon3CjrDVT/lVdMuuDE5QTbX6oDYY?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?L2VUOPpma9m2oDvl7ddGr65JQDWMKCFonUbVms5j?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 900b2a72-20e9-434f-7372-08dab7f0078d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN0PR11MB6304.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2022 07:51:17.4945
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: M5JAQUkewo7tRZMU+Nmy7dZ4SUgSrwSNd7+SMOY8D9oDBTT74ttyA7uphI9Mwwv7rl1gkaUePZqwXFWiFzwf7w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR11MB5119
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
        SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 03:45:12PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:57:52AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > > > This all can get quite expensive so the primary question is, does the
> >> > > > existing behavior generates any real issues or is this more of an
> >> > > > correctness exercise? I mean it certainly is not great to demote to an
> >> > > > incompatible numa node but are there any reasonable configurations when
> >> > > > the demotion target node is explicitly excluded from memory
> >> > > > policy/cpuset?
> >> > >
> >> > > We haven't got customer report on this, but there are quite some customers
> >> > > use cpuset to bind some specific memory nodes to a docker (You've helped
> >> > > us solve a OOM issue in such cases), so I think it's practical to respect
> >> > > the cpuset semantics as much as we can.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it is definitely better to respect cpusets and all local memory
> >> > policies. There is no dispute there. The thing is whether this is really
> >> > worth it. How often would cpusets (or policies in general) go actively
> >> > against demotion nodes (i.e. exclude those nodes from their allowes node
> >> > mask)?
> >> >
> >> > I can imagine workloads which wouldn't like to get their memory demoted
> >> > for some reason but wouldn't it be more practical to tell that
> >> > explicitly (e.g. via prctl) rather than configuring cpusets/memory
> >> > policies explicitly?
> >> >
> >> > > Your concern about the expensive cost makes sense! Some raw ideas are:
> >> > > * if the shrink_folio_list is called by kswapd, the folios come from
> >> > >   the same per-memcg lruvec, so only one check is enough
> >> > > * if not from kswapd, like called form madvise or DAMON code, we can
> >> > >   save a memcg cache, and if the next folio's memcg is same as the
> >> > >   cache, we reuse its result. And due to the locality, the real
> >> > >   check is rarely performed.
> >> >
> >> > memcg is not the expensive part of the thing. You need to get from page
> >> > -> all vmas::vm_policy -> mm -> task::mempolicy
> >> 
> >> Yeah, on the same page with Michal. Figuring out mempolicy from page
> >> seems quite expensive and the correctness can't be guranteed since the
> >> mempolicy could be set per-thread and the mm->task depends on
> >> CONFIG_MEMCG so it doesn't work for !CONFIG_MEMCG.
> >
> > Yes, you are right. Our "working" psudo code for mem policy looks like
> > what Michal mentioned, and it can't work for all cases, but try to
> > enforce it whenever possible:
> >
> > static bool  __check_mpol_demotion(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > 		unsigned long addr, void *arg)
> > {
> > 	bool *skip_demotion = arg;
> > 	struct mempolicy *mpol;
> > 	int nid, dnid;
> > 	bool ret = true;
> >
> > 	mpol = __get_vma_policy(vma, addr);
> > 	if (!mpol) {
> > 		struct task_struct *task;
> 
>                 task = NULL;
> 
> > 		if (vma->vm_mm)
> > 			task = vma->vm_mm->owner;
> >
> > 		if (task) {
> > 			mpol = get_task_policy(task);
> > 			if (mpol)
> > 				mpol_get(mpol);
> > 		}
> > 	}
> >
> > 	if (!mpol)
> > 		return ret;
> >
> > 	if (mpol->mode != MPOL_BIND)
> > 		goto put_exit;
> >
> > 	nid = folio_nid(folio);
> > 	dnid = next_demotion_node(nid);
> > 	if (!node_isset(dnid, mpol->nodes)) {
> > 		*skip_demotion = true;
> > 		ret = false;
> > 	}
> 
> I think that you need to get a node mask instead.  Even if
> !node_isset(dnid, mpol->nodes), you may demote to other node in the node
> mask.

Yes, you are right. This code was written/tested about 2 months ago,
before Aneesh's memory tiering interface patchset. It was listed
to demonstrate idea of solution. 

Thanks,
Feng

> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying