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:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:37:46 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
CC:     "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>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.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: <Y1tOigFZeDzjPGsv@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>
 <CAHbLzkqvh3ry=FjQGuG--As2yYF2NU+bfvORqk1FyfE_vvTwXw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkqvh3ry=FjQGuG--As2yYF2NU+bfvORqk1FyfE_vvTwXw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?aPrU1hUuSYOzp8SroVq9RMYZaKhfixdM1q4Z/7sTwyi9vwo901k+PH1kKBsG?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?hFT2B9V4adri/bqVTEHJ0I9PDHORU7hEmZVRZ3Ekd+zqgrdGV2pqnCmBzsSA?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?I8IPqSr/Iofq6NTELaZE1lr3P/RtzqTLLT30QZ91fxglyorqxm3UF8FLrGaL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?QrWd8CZ0WGbmX3ZEtodcokfXkXC8AF8R3cb+4xBN9QatdmeWceocmZZgoMGc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?icKIkrHTFBgE+ofzXA2Tcm8gSANUh2ln3aEaPeVCoUP5hqCvfrRN0gnSLEzj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RzBbuGaUESv8oK6tPc3iM3Dp2Hif3XYsADrZJhfIUV6druCEeO+gunPaq/mz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?XVQp622HutN1aVLdibdtfW7MNyf8kNIfNg3UZgKRY4IjrQXo3d/Xqd9MLnzD?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?WY2aU9IhW/wayYlYQep99zidPVHAJ0GxgIbuNXxd2zg2mYOdv6lh81dsVqoh?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?SYWzaj/1rCYmnM2STmWz7Hc9i/HM17s3wp+nybR09YhDuYMf89SLE4yRjD1v?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?haHXi6eAbHXNItCeJ9rfKQV66/mcxRiXx7oKeKDRH9v5JJYEeT49rnrsiIWx?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4WfIMsHDKoNzkLHAXYFv1MsEBpSKIYlwr/ILiNExGAaCTYPe2Uvzm6bVMCN5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?HulJf98mswu+1RmXRhMl2cflIU3973zXiitQae+H4AGfCIJBlU5mphYvsg6v?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Vh9OuWSCC1dpGExLpGyFsF4jm9RaRGSwxJ/KfcV3lHE8bZoelHwWY0UboyTk?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?IzYP0F8G8IEcxc4KuT8oez/x0RN3OC+S5qfpdZeXLl90JceN3IelqQCWcf5u?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ckOQB10T1Xya/oyV8IispEnPmF5FyJeMj7jiaqelktuSbXafXVQJ5uljMnzk?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?7veQ8vWUTlYE+O4y4vZvf7yhfY10UWgvrt2iWDr4UUY4GJJMsJSbGrwOpfHC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?syB8mYfPd83gzCzpnPl3uGRgWvEJjNEu0r4K6EZxqjDkY9UskXfqOByGkseW?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?uJh0/QAGHiBLPyByECGSDIiNsCuTvNBzkn/IOWgaUHjbXFJnrB4+EPcbgwnH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?nOD5ftkz4Bbxg36epB2Nq1RpRp3oRVRNRzfzxC47Uwrl+7lbIiAohTGRYGkO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?bWrXUIKK0T9o9ATqUJq6ukbRUc3DgSxq1lZIqB99CDUWTS0wlstzhHHamTnu?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BrYGVehZjmi2wvxRqEd7fRUgNSLwhh0aAwffXOcCodFrsQCACB9WOJr6Ltaj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?zfHUzefirQyD99ynPMgCIZmaWdcUEL7GzipZcngF0Ftp/HGd3NhrQiamuE/9?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?9wGM22oL4OwgOhAtVSS9e0fYKp2FdA2vJoeqQZTJXPv0z1SA0xrc4Vv6FwVb?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?JXIQ2/tk/c/gaoPcLh1AdIpH86PKvQjozSdyy2WQwSrtAMGK2uLir5qd9Fx5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?D2BX66pjYXsMYWLagJaBCBOSzDc7ONEof40D5a4vCGnukW168/rJlC8gRreH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?exLYoTsqr0g1TPMgyios32usFFddvn/BPvrzBwZkpS4u5lyEX1tFrIQ0Dz//?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4JWCc/hUFfmhauE64qtvpz9vSK66Q26WXqroHN30?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: deb430d8-df2d-4186-56e0-08dab895cdcb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN0PR11MB6304.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2022 03:37:56.9889
 (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: 9l3U4iUy3SGVaMoiQb0dLa4Y2foFZ9kaU5vOJIwtYEn0RiWLh2zEyDFnY+s6B7lKF5FJodcu1HgEhSVKbeMAow==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4566
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
        SPF_HELO_PASS,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 10:55:58AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 12:12 AM Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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;
> >                 if (vma->vm_mm)
> >                         task = vma->vm_mm->owner;
> 
> But this task may not be the task you want IIUC. For example, the
> process has two threads, A and B. They have different mempolicy. The
> vmscan is trying to demote a page belonging to thread A, but the task
> may point to thread B, so you actually get the wrong mempolicy IIUC.

Yes, this is a valid concern! We don't have good solution for this.
For memory policy, we may only handle the per-vma policy for now whose
cost is relatively low, as a best-effort try.

Thanks,
Feng