Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:25:55 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        riel@surriel.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeelb@google.com,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
        shuah@kernel.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, yosryahmed@google.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in
 memory controller
Message-ID: <20231002152555.GA5054@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20230928005723.1709119-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <20230928005723.1709119-2-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <ZRrI90KcRBwVZn/r@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20231002145026.GB4414@cmpxchg.org>
 <ZRrc8hv4t740MZar@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZRrc8hv4t740MZar@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 05:08:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-10-23 10:50:26, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 27-09-23 17:57:22, Nhat Pham wrote:
> [...]
> > > - memcg limit reclaim doesn't assist hugetlb pages allocation when
> > >   hugetlb overcommit is configured (i.e. pages are not consumed from the
> > >   pool) which means that the page allocation might disrupt workloads
> > >   from other memcgs.
> > > - failure to charge a hugetlb page results in SIGBUS rather
> > >   than memcg oom killer. That could be the case even if the
> > >   hugetlb pool still has pages available and there is
> > >   reclaimable memory in the memcg.
> > 
> > Are these actually true? AFAICS, regardless of whether the page comes
> > from the pool or the buddy allocator, the memcg code will go through
> > the regular charge path, attempt reclaim, and OOM if that fails.
> 
> OK, I should have been more explicit. Let me expand. Charges are
> accounted only _after_ the actual allocation is done. So the actual
> allocation is not constrained by the memcg context. It might reclaim
> from the memcg at that time but the disruption could have already
> happened. Not really any different from regular memory allocation
> attempt but much more visible with GB pages and one could reasonably
> expect that memcg should stop such a GB allocation if the local reclaim
> would be hopeless to free up enough from its own consumption.
> 
> Makes more sense?

Yes, that makes sense.

This should be fairly easy to address by having hugetlb do the split
transaction that charge_memcg() does in one go, similar to what we do
for the hugetlb controller as well. IOW,

alloc_hugetlb_folio()
{
	if (mem_cgroup_hugetlb_try_charge())
		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

	folio = dequeue();
	if (!folio) {
		folio = alloc_buddy();
		if (!folio)
			goto uncharge;
	}

	mem_cgroup_hugetlb_commit_charge();
}