Received: by 2002:a05:6358:d09b:b0:dc:cd0c:909e with SMTP id jc27csp6728367rwb; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 17:12:12 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4MC9YPbYwQ2tE5Odq1nxVhBlZoXhkH3PYE0t/nZNXs3vE+SLwtybahx260JL0MB5WR5pHN X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a209:b0:78e:ebf:2722 with SMTP id r9-20020a170906a20900b0078e0ebf2722mr68248083ejy.490.1670289132114; Mon, 05 Dec 2022 17:12:12 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1670289132; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=dP9zJHXtJ0Uxi67lAtrYMFRieJsktUt7nL4kqDhkTK/NkDPdE9WLpaEYVjii5QIRw4 ziSG17t2B05fKq9BQ5I5dahZvC9QIgfmxCcT50wer8YQ/WAfPiQu8x2A4eBj7N5iyv/U OAozz0aQ5K/CKYBUg3NswURFJL35CAiK1wngLxP5KS9A5PdcR64he5D2HBXKGgF5qJrw NfgWUs0alAGBtHExyZbvgGi6fgE0/uLC1wzwVvhVRLfp5G0oC3fDeV6/uaXDdaFgqyZe gX+n0nhUlz2MKavleSr4UkGDrP5XWt5IReTEl9R0XFu18bf4zKy9a3QFAekUZxS8PcHz lEMg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=t7EllS7EycwJQKQ7E4+tjHuL0D77O7aeDFmbgKj4v/I=; b=yK2UXOHqiKVwLEnbIJKyT5cB776yv08o6IIkDtF8TvFdVkKibdMseQLw5kkqGfYqFr d4OYsFDNOZsmnLNOuOE4bD25/lDXZD3aio8ht5YmWA8SgkHuEdBHpnPWhGjljHSF9UCE qqISlAAYpW4flBOv6M1fkZF7puQpmr91x/zCIQBwF7HpjZbNUs+1BtuMyagRfA+xuA1e ocpxDKEgRHBoC5s3ZbwgjoKkyeRVu9VAT4ozvGwB4bWBhRJkWBReZdLGudoiKw3UC1f1 FFnRo8yH2l1oXmpfOmyEoQptlLxsJojQ4DuZuei6z65jXRwa9c6xyoHCqqjQHLD3zsvQ Uw1A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@cloudflare.com header.s=google header.b=EJHHbJiu; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=cloudflare.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b10-20020a056402350a00b0046b9dc9bd27si903794edd.157.2022.12.05.17.11.52; Mon, 05 Dec 2022 17:12:12 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@cloudflare.com header.s=google header.b=EJHHbJiu; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=cloudflare.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233303AbiLFAvB (ORCPT + 80 others); Mon, 5 Dec 2022 19:51:01 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32932 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233171AbiLFAu7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2022 19:50:59 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8A81B1CC for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 16:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id z9so5875396ilu.10 for ; Mon, 05 Dec 2022 16:50:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=t7EllS7EycwJQKQ7E4+tjHuL0D77O7aeDFmbgKj4v/I=; b=EJHHbJiu3ulNrc8DJW8/qrbdCa4J7MJZMd/Wlf1oS4r/IF6DcNFguC+jw1hlPEuHSt 1fOLkP0UpyyFpW4Q9rsWCBOlASujjlxifFP4fjd0u2AmzLWhQNCpmJupByUKqb5zod0I Qtbp43Ngn3R8VJj6ir32hJg1qc9AIYu/Xw60E= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=t7EllS7EycwJQKQ7E4+tjHuL0D77O7aeDFmbgKj4v/I=; b=1Gbe02XkNaA0+Xyz8Ob29bvBDHHQz/pqemWsrJ67D//ONrWMAuGU55THAkpS+yXnzI 0vGEuZ3q+xTTlV82rvYIqVbz88CwKXpdGPrV/g7x13emWzkC+QjnmeWubMtU9R3j6EnH 9nYLpdlPc6lWuDJcwuOCegM3cMr0CJTrSaD3VjUqHgTszn3bdIW/mp+8iQDTCfYVCIzm B59D//ofnV5QliyKwrk1xAxEyExrvmxO+NopRlFmfMnDDA5WhCwuAQ+QDoRUrPfCBXte IR6I3vPKCD8+PqmJzYCD+7VahFloV5Qm11Qcdd8F91yy2P+QDESD5lMSE60/gZV8O46N 9Tpg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnd0PuVBliZ5dTHTi3UeagIyPdoGdWGHpXyIgr2p/xAvgY+HbGS RNFmXEg6kNzhOHrIKzvskUnYjNPfYjmvVCCmZEcj9ZEh5hmTTddqlrI= X-Received: by 2002:a92:db42:0:b0:2fa:b6c0:80fd with SMTP id w2-20020a92db42000000b002fab6c080fdmr14932425ilq.164.1670287857252; Mon, 05 Dec 2022 16:50:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ivan Babrou Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 16:50:46 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Low TCP throughput due to vmpressure with swap enabled To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Linux MM , Linux Kernel Network Developers , linux-kernel , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , "David S. Miller" , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , David Ahern , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 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: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:57 PM Ivan Babrou wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:07 AM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 05:28:24PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 2:11 PM Ivan Babrou wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:05 PM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:53:43PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > We have observed a negative TCP throughput behavior from the following commit: > > > > > > > > > > > > * 8e8ae645249b mm: memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket pressure > > > > > > > > > > > > It landed back in 2016 in v4.5, so it's not exactly a new issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > The crux of the issue is that in some cases with swap present the > > > > > > workload can be unfairly throttled in terms of TCP throughput. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the detailed analysis, Ivan. > > > > > > > > > > Originally, we pushed back on sockets only when regular page reclaim > > > > > had completely failed and we were about to OOM. This patch was an > > > > > attempt to be smarter about it and equalize pressure more smoothly > > > > > between socket memory, file cache, anonymous pages. > > > > > > > > > > After a recent discussion with Shakeel, I'm no longer quite sure the > > > > > kernel is the right place to attempt this sort of balancing. It kind > > > > > of depends on the workload which type of memory is more imporant. And > > > > > your report shows that vmpressure is a flawed mechanism to implement > > > > > this, anyway. > > > > > > > > > > So I'm thinking we should delete the vmpressure thing, and go back to > > > > > socket throttling only if an OOM is imminent. This is in line with > > > > > what we do at the system level: sockets get throttled only after > > > > > reclaim fails and we hit hard limits. It's then up to the users and > > > > > sysadmin to allocate a reasonable amount of buffers given the overall > > > > > memory budget. > > > > > > > > > > Cgroup accounting, limiting and OOM enforcement is still there for the > > > > > socket buffers, so misbehaving groups will be contained either way. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? Something like the below patch? > > > > > > > > The idea sounds very reasonable to me. I can't really speak for the > > > > patch contents with any sort of authority, but it looks ok to my > > > > non-expert eyes. > > > > > > > > There were some conflicts when cherry-picking this into v5.15. I think > > > > the only real one was for the "!sc->proactive" condition not being > > > > present there. For the rest I just accepted the incoming change. > > > > > > > > I'm going to be away from my work computer until December 5th, but > > > > I'll try to expedite my backported patch to a production machine today > > > > to confirm that it makes the difference. If I can get some approvals > > > > on my internal PRs, I should be able to provide the results by EOD > > > > tomorrow. > > > > > > I tried the patch and something isn't right here. > > > > Thanks for giving it a sping. > > > > > With the patch applied I'm capped at ~120MB/s, which is a symptom of a > > > clamped window. > > > > > > I can't find any sockets with memcg->socket_pressure = 1, but at the > > > same time I only see the following rcv_ssthresh assigned to sockets: > > > > Hm, I don't see how socket accounting would alter the network behavior > > other than through socket_pressure=1. > > > > How do you look for that flag? If you haven't yet done something > > comparable, can you try with tracing to rule out sampling errors? > > Apologies for a delayed reply, I took a week off away from computers. > > I looked with bpftrace (from my bash_history): > > $ sudo bpftrace -e 'kprobe:tcp_try_rmem_schedule { @sk[cpu] = arg0; } > kretprobe:tcp_try_rmem_schedule { $arg = @sk[cpu]; if ($arg) { $sk = > (struct sock *) $arg; $id = $sk->sk_memcg->css.cgroup->kn->id; > $socket_pressure = $sk->sk_memcg->socket_pressure; if ($id == 21379) { > printf("id = %d, socket_pressure = %d\n", $id, $socket_pressure); } } > }' > > I tried your patch on top of v6.1-rc8 (where it produced no conflicts) > in my vm and it still gave me low numbers and nothing in > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace. To be extra sure, I changed it from > trace_printk to just printk and it still didn't show up in dmesg, even > with constant low throughput: > > ivan@vm:~$ curl -o /dev/null https://sim.cfperf.net/cached-assets/zero-5g.bin > % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current > Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed > 14 4768M 14 685M 0 0 12.9M 0 0:06:08 0:00:52 0:05:16 13.0M > > I still saw clamped rcv_ssthresh: > > $ sudo ss -tinm dport 443 > State Recv-Q Send-Q > Local Address:Port > Peer Address:Port Process > ESTAB 0 0 > 10.2.0.15:35800 > 162.159.136.82:443 > skmem:(r0,rb2577228,t0,tb46080,f0,w0,o0,bl0,d0) cubic rto:201 > rtt:0.42/0.09 ato:40 mss:1460 pmtu:1500 rcvmss:1440 advmss:1460 > cwnd:10 bytes_sent:12948 bytes_acked:12949 bytes_received:2915062731 > segs_out:506592 segs_in:2025111 data_segs_out:351 data_segs_in:2024911 > send 278095238bps lastsnd:824 lastrcv:154 lastack:154 pacing_rate > 556190472bps delivery_rate 47868848bps delivered:352 app_limited > busy:147ms rcv_rtt:0.011 rcv_space:82199 rcv_ssthresh:5840 > minrtt:0.059 snd_wnd:65535 tcp-ulp-tls rxconf: none txconf: none > > I also tried with my detection program for ebpf_exporter (fexit based version): > > * https://github.com/cloudflare/ebpf_exporter/pull/172/files > > Which also showed signs of a clamped window: > > # HELP ebpf_exporter_tcp_window_clamps_total Number of times that TCP > window was clamped to a low value > # TYPE ebpf_exporter_tcp_window_clamps_total counter > ebpf_exporter_tcp_window_clamps_total 53887 > > In fact, I can replicate this with just curl to a public URL and fio running, I sprinkled some more printk around to get to the bottom of this: static inline bool mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && memcg->socket_pressure) { printk("socket pressure[1]: %lu", memcg->socket_pressure); return true; } do { if (memcg->socket_pressure) { printk("socket pressure[2]: %lu", memcg->socket_pressure); return true; } } while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg))); return false; } And now I can see plenty of this: [ 108.156707][ T5175] socket pressure[2]: 4294673429 [ 108.157050][ T5175] socket pressure[2]: 4294673429 [ 108.157301][ T5175] socket pressure[2]: 4294673429 [ 108.157581][ T5175] socket pressure[2]: 4294673429 [ 108.157874][ T5175] socket pressure[2]: 4294673429 [ 108.158254][ T5175] socket pressure[2]: 4294673429 I think the first result below is to blame: $ rg '.->socket_pressure' mm mm/memcontrol.c 5280: memcg->socket_pressure = jiffies; 7198: memcg->socket_pressure = 0; 7201: memcg->socket_pressure = 1; 7211: memcg->socket_pressure = 0; 7215: memcg->socket_pressure = 1; While we set socket_pressure to either zero or one in mem_cgroup_charge_skmem, it is still initialized to jiffies on memcg creation. Zero seems like a more appropriate starting point. With that change I see it working as expected with no TCP speed bumps. My ebpf_exporter program also looks happy and reports zero clamps in my brief testing. Since it's not "socket pressure[1]" in dmesg output, then it's probably one of the parent cgroups that is not getting charged for socket memory that is reporting memory pressure. I also think we should downgrade socket_pressure from "unsigned long" to "bool", as it only holds zero and one now.