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:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:19:02 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
CC:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.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: <Y18wlvRE3jeKAhPC@feng-clx>
References: <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>
 <Y1tOigFZeDzjPGsv@feng-clx>
 <87y1t0ijbk.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CAHbLzkpO46yTiSVrKWRnABNW_PutuudEkB3RD-_YKxamW9SyaA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkpO46yTiSVrKWRnABNW_PutuudEkB3RD-_YKxamW9SyaA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?dgfFuhBu7BAycT4gyN2D8IO0yHfceTVVCEdze+51gx/s0+1mjPoW+YjFtyM1?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BBgvpZpWad1pXOQXx+PQFAHzfiOj/l0LKZmIDJPT0JtBosAqhTY+433jVxI/?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?wASUxtWjTueOOLI/zvt9kq+locGPiv73Ghy1VoymtzyvUfmQo28oVFP3x0pS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?aSM+Kru79Dd/CRokwr3G7mORqZgrHnTTTirBYAOH6j/4/CRVf1xOqc0ojMoL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4B6jLBpnMICMpsaHE2WoZnNLI064Cq8mZcqZRrSNAg3N24ibGBZUjE0Ptxx8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?caD4JjIjDIB2h7O4kc1WyZu6OdXMSXZMpjdRfkatJV2MOn9uOZBN4mHg24fQ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jP36prB7l6tNPYfANoMBZC9nwL4LHO7akyooEQdBHGqW+trGApN++sObh5e0?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?7e/UzMXwBd534NkDkyYv1yUKKkdPNbODsxLzDednRfnSgQMgLBxaA0bx9g9J?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?bk6Oj2vW/o9xiSQ35UqR1LEhSGX7++ast59f2wB7u1QIdaz9+BHA2HdmugiH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?xCnQOlW3pWXIVcRNOeQlqZotuZkxu3Q98kIIpHwsl/i3YliXBMKzZgPIpMHX?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?9zVUqW4xhKxt8BWEdMlZPN8fHgievcBbcfbbLFXdguO8DNTDPP9urbvaAqqr?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?DTUILKyD4WwrKZ7HGC7BIiWSRbTQhw4/jBRQqYdHZk15ii57sr07xLsjMdrd?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4C7S7zrAd2LR0vLp5TblK2pehCWGADOeksc7qTuEm0a2YMyv2NjHtqquMHJj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RiLw+NYLeU1QRQ181ZPVv1Y/fZuTShh4wvFFDUVKoGhJCh2k5UbtYzhE+9YI?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Gw83QaGseDTNeVzQqZBcSsOFqvR6awkuZF/VWsa+QoK8z4KXWelvb88glyJn?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?SaRXPTc2vt+T9pnByVWWNDHSd03KelRrdoXH07lw9/zyWUwbe+u3CQWYgp/U?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?QQAXV5MneNXU5XJal7KiB3Ox8NpsOSXdTXMxA7s/Ijt8UYcHQz0mWadrCr5k?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?De5ZetXHWTKtVYkcmtNr5WYcP7TbGIN+yMbOZVtCniAjxqiCX+Dtvld+vqDR?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?0egCAdEGFrWe5FanQX/EJt63BvPnSbJArauhgRAxSJzCMyY3nbjRKvK2W8RG?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?wS8xcjC6Cb4txKudyMj2+WVmnODiq0GkS6w57Gq9wg2y+PsDAn0hHw4MzEVQ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?oOgAxXJ6eLQjDUOzeONGBSvPMzAOqibvEnZQboee1rfGGX1qFqw32YK0PIhm?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?FrdHKmGgZXL9oXr7ZyVbbBzLWtHL6rO4MBACDHBArT3wvC+h+XxPdCken3Fq?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?+f+LNPzSxdwDeJ91R9mPevsLt8Iy+uH4X7Cwh3kO+bzUuej9lTsdDGFRvqyW?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Qs60PPcbgX8ReP5UK1t5O2vqp/k8oX/TtJdj4KxaZKdR7BaXtp6zWMOevHZA?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rZ7v6fEGs6cF3BSh7GvY79HvO4Rs6emzox+Fgwwc1dizlSu64lQOjOHxUyFX?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?6AW9H0RTzPAk1U5MQ02en/Rp57NwxGc6vHkeIQGOBwVD9Pv+jnv1KzDueRQl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?kGU1LzWcbmJjsIatF4DMSaLGeVilguJKpNmE/RF5?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6e009e09-02bf-4df5-6fab-08dabae64c1a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN0PR11MB6304.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Oct 2022 02:19:11.2297
 (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: B61LqMv+z/scEwWybJhn2J4ETjM6devNjvJL3s3o1ZdhaqG7UMAYCxSZTp9/R/tsmj5WPH+x66kiOJnbv+JfIQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DS0PR11MB6448
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 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_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 Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 01:23:53AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:55 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> writes:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yes.  The solution isn't perfect, especially for multiple-thread
> > processes with thread specific memory policy.  But the proposed code
> > above can support the most common cases at least, that is, run workload
> > with `numactl`.
> 
> Not only multi threads, but also may be broken for shared pages. When
> you do rmap walk, you may get multiple contradict mempolicy, which one
> would you like to obey?

In our test code, it follows the stricter policy, that if the rmap
walk meets a mempolicy disallowing the demotion, it will stop the walk
and return with 'skip_demotion' flag set.

Thanks,
Feng