Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-36590-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:50:43 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, android-mm@google.com,
	yuzhao@google.com, yangyifei03@kuaishou.com,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm:vmscan: fix inaccurate reclaim during
 proactive reclaim"
Message-ID: <ZbDBU_1BcLkKmLbA@tiehlicka>
References: <20240121214413.833776-1-tjmercier@google.com>
 <Za-H8NNW9bL-I4gj@tiehlicka>
 <CABdmKX2K4MMe9rsKfWi9RxUS5G1RkLVzuUkPnovt5O2hqVmbWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240123164819.GB1745986@cmpxchg.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240123164819.GB1745986@cmpxchg.org>

On Tue 23-01-24 11:48:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> The revert isn't a straight-forward solution.
> 
> The patch you're reverting fixed conventional reclaim and broke
> MGLRU. Your revert fixes MGLRU and breaks conventional reclaim.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 05:58:05AM -0800, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> > They both are able to make progress. The main difference is that a
> > single iteration of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages with MGLRU ends soon
> > after it reclaims nr_to_reclaim, and before it touches all memcgs. So
> > a single iteration really will reclaim only about SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX-ish
> > pages with MGLRU. WIthout MGLRU the memcg walk is not aborted
> > immediately after nr_to_reclaim is reached, so a single call to
> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages can actually reclaim thousands of pages
> > even when sc->nr_to_reclaim is 32. (I.E. MGLRU overreclaims less.)
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221201223923.873696-1-yuzhao@google.com/
> 
> Is that a feature or a bug?
> 
>  * 1. Memcg LRU only applies to global reclaim, and the round-robin incrementing
>  *    of their max_seq counters ensures the eventual fairness to all eligible
>  *    memcgs. For memcg reclaim, it still relies on mem_cgroup_iter().
> 
> If it bails out exactly after nr_to_reclaim, it'll overreclaim
> less. But with steady reclaim in a complex subtree, it will always hit
> the first cgroup returned by mem_cgroup_iter() and then bail. This
> seems like a fairness issue.

Agreed. We would need to re-introduce something like we used to have
before 1ba6fc9af35bf.

> We should figure out what the right method for balancing fairness with
> overreclaim is, regardless of reclaim implementation. Because having
> two different approaches and reverting dependent things back and forth
> doesn't make sense.

Absolutely agreed!

> Using an LRU to rotate through memcgs over multiple reclaim cycles
> seems like a good idea. Why is this specific to MGLRU? Shouldn't this
> be a generic piece of memcg infrastructure?
> 
> Then there is the question of why there is an LRU for global reclaim,
> but not for subtree reclaim. Reclaiming a container with multiple
> subtrees would benefit from the fairness provided by a container-level
> LRU order just as much; having fairness for root but not for subtrees
> would produce different reclaim and pressure behavior, and can cause
> regressions when moving a service from bare-metal into a container.
> 
> Figuring out these differences and converging on a method for cgroup
> fairness would be the better way of fixing this. Because of the
> regression risk to the default reclaim implementation, I'm inclined to
> NAK this revert.

I do agree that a simple revert doesn't seem to be the way to go.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs