Message-ID: <15c605f27f87d732e80e294f13fd9513697b65e3.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce memcg_stock_pcp remote draining
From:   Leonardo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E1s?= <leobras@redhat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 04:35:22 -0300
In-Reply-To: <Y9N7UMrLTyZT71uA@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20230125073502.743446-1-leobras@redhat.com>
         <Y9DpbVF+JR/G+5Or@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <9e61ab53e1419a144f774b95230b789244895424.camel@redhat.com>
         <Y9FzSBw10MGXm2TK@tpad> <Y9G36AiqPPFDlax3@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
         <Y9Iurktut9B9T+Tl@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <Y9MI42NSLooyVZNu@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
         <55ac6e3cbb97c7d13c49c3125c1455d8a2c785c3.camel@redhat.com>
         <Y9N7UMrLTyZT71uA@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2023-01-27 at 08:20 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 27-01-23 04:14:19, Leonardo Br=C3=A1s wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 15:12 -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > > I'd rather opt out of stock draining for isolated cpus: it might slig=
htly reduce
> > > the accuracy of memory limits and slightly increase the memory footpr=
int (all
> > > those dying memcgs...), but the impact will be limited. Actually it i=
s limited
> > > by the number of cpus.
> >=20
> > I was discussing this same idea with Marcelo yesterday morning.
> >=20
> > The questions had in the topic were:
> > a - About how many pages the pcp cache will hold before draining them i=
tself?=C2=A0
>=20
> MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH (64 currently). And one more clarification. The cache
> doesn't really hold any pages. It is a mere counter of how many charges
> have been accounted for the memcg page counter. So it is not really
> consuming proportional amount of resources. It just pins the
> corresponding memcg. Have a look at consume_stock and refill_stock

I see. Thanks for pointing that out!

So in worst case scenario the memcg would have reserved 64 pages * (numcpus=
 - 1)
that are not getting used, and may cause an 'earlier' OOM if this amount is
needed but can't be freed.

In the wave of worst case, supposing a big powerpc machine, 256 CPUs, each
holding 64k * 64 pages =3D> 1GB memory - 4MB (one cpu using resources).
It's starting to get too big, but still ok for a machine this size.

The thing is that it can present an odd behavior:=20
You have a cgroup created before, now empty, and try to run given applicati=
on,
and hits OOM.
You then restart the cgroup, run the same application without an issue.

Even though it looks a good possibility, this can be perceived by user as
instability.

>=20
> > b - Would it cache any kind of bigger page, or huge page in this same a=
spect?
>=20
> The above should answer this as well as those following up I hope. If
> not let me know.

IIUC we are talking normal pages, is that it?

Best regards,
Leo