Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-54541-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:58:40 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Efly Young <yangyifei03@kuaishou.com>, android-mm@google.com,
	yuzhao@google.com, mkoutny@suse.com,
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memcg: Use larger batches for proactive reclaim
Message-ID: <ZcH0wBPvOjqayjAD@tiehlicka>
References: <20240202233855.1236422-1-tjmercier@google.com>
 <ZcC7Kgew3GDFNIux@tiehlicka>
 <CABdmKX3HbSxX6zLF4z3f+=Ybiq1bA71jckkeHv5QJxAjSexgaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZcE5n9cTdTGJChmq@tiehlicka>
 <CABdmKX0Du2F+bko=hjLBqdQO-bJSFcG3y1Bbuu2v6J8aVB39sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZcFG2JoXI7i8XzQY@tiehlicka>
 <CABdmKX0t1LXj80Awe20TrmY5gQB6v2E4bGfW8WXr2i84o+k6ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZcFQMru5_oATGbuP@tiehlicka>
 <CABdmKX35GV3VFar0_pNR_vAXLpvxo+APALXMharsXh6TO+0mrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABdmKX35GV3VFar0_pNR_vAXLpvxo+APALXMharsXh6TO+0mrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon 05-02-24 20:01:40, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:16 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 05-02-24 12:47:47, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:36 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > This of something like
> > > > timeout $TIMEOUT echo $TARGET > $MEMCG_PATH/memory.reclaim
> > > > where timeout acts as a stop gap if the reclaim cannot finish in
> > > > TIMEOUT.
> > >
> > > Yeah I get the desired behavior, but using sc->nr_reclaimed to achieve
> > > it is what's bothering me.
> >
> > I am not really happy about this subtlety. If we have a better way then
> > let's do it. Better in its own patch, though.
> >
> > > It's already wired up that way though, so if you want to make this
> > > change now then I can try to test for the difference using really
> > > large reclaim targets.
> >
> > Yes, please. If you want it a separate patch then no objection from me
> > of course. If you do no like the nr_to_reclaim bailout then maybe we can
> > go with a simple break out flag in scan_control.
> >
> > Thanks!
> 
> It's a bit difficult to test under the too_many_isolated check, so I
> moved the fatal_signal_pending check outside and tried with that.
> Performing full reclaim on the /uid_0 cgroup with a 250ms delay before
> SIGKILL, I got an average of 16ms better latency with
> sc->nr_to_reclaim across 20 runs ignoring one 1s outlier with
> SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX.

This will obviously scale with the number of memcgs in the hierarchy but
you are right that too_many_isolated makes the whole fatal_signal_pending
check rather inefficient. I haven't missed that. The reclaim path is
rather convoluted so this will likely be more complex than I
anticipated. I will think about that some more.

In order to not delay your patch, please repost with suggested updates
to the changelog. This needs addressing IMO but I do not think this is
critical at this stage.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs