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:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:00:35 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Cc:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, weixugc@google.com,
        shakeelb@google.com, gthelen@google.com, fvdl@google.com,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V1] mm: Disable demotion from proactive reclaim
Message-ID: <Y35fw2JSAeAddONg@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20221122203850.2765015-1-almasrymina@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221122203850.2765015-1-almasrymina@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello Mina,

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:38:45PM -0800, Mina Almasry wrote:
> Since commit 3f1509c57b1b ("Revert "mm/vmscan: never demote for memcg
> reclaim""), the proactive reclaim interface memory.reclaim does both
> reclaim and demotion. This is likely fine for us for latency critical
> jobs where we would want to disable proactive reclaim entirely, and is
> also fine for latency tolerant jobs where we would like to both
> proactively reclaim and demote.
> 
> However, for some latency tiers in the middle we would like to demote but
> not reclaim. This is because reclaim and demotion incur different latency
> costs to the jobs in the cgroup. Demoted memory would still be addressable
> by the userspace at a higher latency, but reclaimed memory would need to
> incur a pagefault.
> 
> To address this, I propose having reclaim-only and demotion-only
> mechanisms in the kernel. There are a couple possible
> interfaces to carry this out I considered:
> 
> 1. Disable demotion in the memory.reclaim interface and add a new
>    demotion interface (memory.demote).
> 2. Extend memory.reclaim with a "demote=<int>" flag to configure the demotion
>    behavior in the kernel like so:
>    	- demote=0 would disable demotion from this call.
> 	- demote=1 would allow the kernel to demote if it desires.
> 	- demote=2 would only demote if possible but not attempt any
> 	  other form of reclaim.

Unfortunately, our proactive reclaim stack currently relies on
memory.reclaim doing both. It may not stay like that, but I'm a bit
wary of changing user-visible semantics post-facto.

In patch 2, you're adding a node interface to memory.demote. Can you
add this to memory.reclaim instead? This would allow you to control
demotion and reclaim independently as you please: if you call it on a
node with demotion targets, it will demote; if you call it on a node
without one, it'll reclaim. And current users will remain unaffected.