kernel/linux.git/include/linux/memcontrol.h, branch v5.4.146

mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional memory.low reclaim

2021-08-26T12:36:22+00:00

[ Upstream commit f56ce412a59d7d938b81de8878faef128812482c ] We've noticed occasional OOM killing when memory.low settings are in effect for cgroups. This is unexpected and undesirable as memory.low is supposed to express non-OOMing memory priorities between cgroups. The reason for this is proportional memory.low reclaim. When cgroups are below their memory.low threshold, reclaim passes them over in the first round, and then retries if it couldn't find pages anywhere else. But when cgroups are slightly above their memory.low setting, page scan force is scaled down and diminished in proportion to the overage, to the point where it can cause reclaim to fail as well - only in that case we currently don't retry, and instead trigger OOM. To fix this, hook proportional reclaim into the same retry logic we have in place for when cgroups are skipped entirely. This way if reclaim fails and some cgroups were scanned with diminished pressure, we'll try another full-force cycle before giving up and OOMing. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210817180506.220056-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner Reported-by: Leon Yang Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Acked-by: Chris Down Acked-by: Michal Hocko Cc: [5.4+] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

mm, memcg: avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above protection

2021-08-26T12:36:22+00:00

[ Upstream commit 22f7496f0b901249f23c5251eb8a10aae126b909 ] Patch series "mm, memcg: memory.{low,min} reclaim fix & cleanup", v4. This series contains a fix for a edge case in my earlier protection calculation patches, and a patch to make the area overall a little more robust to hopefully help avoid this in future. This patch (of 2): A cgroup can have both memory protection and a memory limit to isolate it from its siblings in both directions - for example, to prevent it from being shrunk below 2G under high pressure from outside, but also from growing beyond 4G under low pressure. Commit 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") implemented proportional scan pressure so that multiple siblings in excess of their protection settings don't get reclaimed equally but instead in accordance to their unprotected portion. During limit reclaim, this proportionality shouldn't apply of course: there is no competition, all pressure is from within the cgroup and should be applied as such. Reclaim should operate at full efficiency. However, mem_cgroup_protected() never expected anybody to look at the effective protection values when it indicated that the cgroup is above its protection. As a result, a query during limit reclaim may return stale protection values that were calculated by a previous reclaim cycle in which the cgroup did have siblings. When this happens, reclaim is unnecessarily hesitant and potentially slow to meet the desired limit. In theory this could lead to premature OOM kills, although it's not obvious this has occurred in practice. Workaround the problem by special casing reclaim roots in mem_cgroup_protection. These memcgs are never participating in the reclaim protection because the reclaim is internal. We have to ignore effective protection values for reclaim roots because mem_cgroup_protected might be called from racing reclaim contexts with different roots. Calculation is relying on root -> leaf tree traversal therefore top-down reclaim protection invariants should hold. The only exception is the reclaim root which should have effective protection set to 0 but that would be problematic for the following setup: Let's have global and A's reclaim in parallel: | A (low=2G, usage = 3G, max = 3G, children_low_usage = 1.5G) |\ | C (low = 1G, usage = 2.5G) B (low = 1G, usage = 0.5G) for A reclaim we have B.elow = B.low C.elow = C.low For the global reclaim A.elow = A.low B.elow = min(B.usage, B.low) because children_low_usage <= A.elow C.elow = min(C.usage, C.low) With the effective values resetting we have A reclaim A.elow = 0 B.elow = B.low C.elow = C.low and global reclaim could see the above and then B.elow = C.elow = 0 because children_low_usage > A.elow Which means that protected memcgs would get reclaimed. In future we would like to make mem_cgroup_protected more robust against racing reclaim contexts but that is likely more complex solution than this simple workaround. [hannes@cmpxchg.org - large part of the changelog] [mhocko@suse.com - workaround explanation] [chris@chrisdown.name - retitle] Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao Signed-off-by: Chris Down Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Acked-by: Michal Hocko Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Chris Down Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1594638158.git.chris@chrisdown.name Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/044fb8ecffd001c7905d27c0c2ad998069fdc396.1594638158.git.chris@chrisdown.name Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

mm, memcg: fix inconsistent oom event behavior

2020-05-20T06:20:27+00:00

[ Upstream commit 04fd61a4e01028210a91f0efc408c8bc61a3018c ] A recent commit 9852ae3fe529 ("mm, memcg: consider subtrees in memory.events") changed the behavior of memcg events, which will now consider subtrees in memory.events. But oom_kill event is a special one as it is used in both cgroup1 and cgroup2. In cgroup1, it is displayed in memory.oom_control. The file memory.oom_control is in both root memcg and non root memcg, that is different with memory.event as it only in non-root memcg. That commit is okay for cgroup2, but it is not okay for cgroup1 as it will cause inconsistent behavior between root memcg and non-root memcg. Here's an example on why this behavior is inconsistent in cgroup1. root memcg / memcg foo / memcg bar Suppose there's an oom_kill in memcg bar, then the oon_kill will be root memcg : memory.oom_control(oom_kill) 0 / memcg foo : memory.oom_control(oom_kill) 1 / memcg bar : memory.oom_control(oom_kill) 1 For the non-root memcg, its memory.oom_control(oom_kill) includes its descendants' oom_kill, but for root memcg, it doesn't include its descendants' oom_kill. That means, memory.oom_control(oom_kill) has different meanings in different memcgs. That is inconsistent. Then the user has to know whether the memcg is root or not. If we can't fully support it in cgroup1, for example by adding memory.events.local into cgroup1 as well, then let's don't touch its original behavior. Fixes: 9852ae3fe529 ("mm, memcg: consider subtrees in memory.events") Reported-by: Randy Dunlap Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Chris Down Acked-by: Michal Hocko Cc: Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200502141055.7378-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

mm: fork: fix kernel_stack memcg stats for various stack implementations

2020-04-01T09:02:03+00:00

commit 8380ce479010f2f779587b462a9b4681934297c3 upstream. Depending on CONFIG_VMAP_STACK and the THREAD_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE ratio the space for task stacks can be allocated using __vmalloc_node_range(), alloc_pages_node() and kmem_cache_alloc_node(). In the first and the second cases page->mem_cgroup pointer is set, but in the third it's not: memcg membership of a slab page should be determined using the memcg_from_slab_page() function, which looks at page->slab_cache->memcg_params.memcg . In this case, using mod_memcg_page_state() (as in account_kernel_stack()) is incorrect: page->mem_cgroup pointer is NULL even for pages charged to a non-root memory cgroup. It can lead to kernel_stack per-memcg counters permanently showing 0 on some architectures (depending on the configuration). In order to fix it, let's introduce a mod_memcg_obj_state() helper, which takes a pointer to a kernel object as a first argument, uses mem_cgroup_from_obj() to get a RCU-protected memcg pointer and calls mod_memcg_state(). It allows to handle all possible configurations (CONFIG_VMAP_STACK and various THREAD_SIZE/PAGE_SIZE values) without spilling any memcg/kmem specifics into fork.c . Note: This is a special version of the patch created for stable backports. It contains code from the following two patches: - mm: memcg/slab: introduce mem_cgroup_from_obj() - mm: fork: fix kernel_stack memcg stats for various stack implementations [guro@fb.com: introduce mem_cgroup_from_obj()] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200324004221.GA36662@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com Fixes: 4d96ba353075 ("mm: memcg/slab: stop setting page->mem_cgroup pointer for slab pages") Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Bharata B Rao Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200303233550.251375-1-guro@fb.com Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection

2019-10-07T22:47:20+00:00

This patch is an incremental improvement on the existing memory.{low,min} relative reclaim work to base its scan pressure calculations on how much protection is available compared to the current usage, rather than how much the current usage is over some protection threshold. This change doesn't change the experience for the user in the normal case too much. One benefit is that it replaces the (somewhat arbitrary) 100% cutoff with an indefinite slope, which makes it easier to ballpark a memory.low value. As well as this, the old methodology doesn't quite apply generically to machines with varying amounts of physical memory. Let's say we have a top level cgroup, workload.slice, and another top level cgroup, system-management.slice. We want to roughly give 12G to system-management.slice, so on a 32GB machine we set memory.low to 20GB in workload.slice, and on a 64GB machine we set memory.low to 52GB. However, because these are relative amounts to the total machine size, while the amount of memory we want to generally be willing to yield to system.slice is absolute (12G), we end up putting more pressure on system.slice just because we have a larger machine and a larger workload to fill it, which seems fairly unintuitive. With this new behaviour, we don't end up with this unintended side effect. Previously the way that memory.low protection works is that if you are 50% over a certain baseline, you get 50% of your normal scan pressure. This is certainly better than the previous cliff-edge behaviour, but it can be improved even further by always considering memory under the currently enforced protection threshold to be out of bounds. This means that we can set relatively low memory.low thresholds for variable or bursty workloads while still getting a reasonable level of protection, whereas with the previous version we may still trivially hit the 100% clamp. The previous 100% clamp is also somewhat arbitrary, whereas this one is more concretely based on the currently enforced protection threshold, which is likely easier to reason about. There is also a subtle issue with the way that proportional reclaim worked previously -- it promotes having no memory.low, since it makes pressure higher during low reclaim. This happens because we base our scan pressure modulation on how far memory.current is between memory.min and memory.low, but if memory.low is unset, we only use the overage method. In most cromulent configurations, this then means that we end up with *more* pressure than with no memory.low at all when we're in low reclaim, which is not really very usable or expected. With this patch, memory.low and memory.min affect reclaim pressure in a more understandable and composable way. For example, from a user standpoint, "protected" memory now remains untouchable from a reclaim aggression standpoint, and users can also have more confidence that bursty workloads will still receive some amount of guaranteed protection. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190322160307.GA3316@chrisdown.name Signed-off-by: Chris Down Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Acked-by: Michal Hocko Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Dennis Zhou Cc: Vladimir Davydov Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm, memcg: make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination

2019-10-07T22:47:20+00:00

Roman points out that when when we do the low reclaim pass, we scale the reclaim pressure relative to position between 0 and the maximum protection threshold. However, if the maximum protection is based on memory.elow, and memory.emin is above zero, this means we still may get binary behaviour on second-pass low reclaim. This is because we scale starting at 0, not starting at memory.emin, and since we don't scan at all below emin, we end up with cliff behaviour. This should be a fairly uncommon case since usually we don't go into the second pass, but it makes sense to scale our low reclaim pressure starting at emin. You can test this by catting two large sparse files, one in a cgroup with emin set to some moderate size compared to physical RAM, and another cgroup without any emin. In both cgroups, set an elow larger than 50% of physical RAM. The one with emin will have less page scanning, as reclaim pressure is lower. Rebase on top of and apply the same idea as what was applied to handle cgroup_memory=disable properly for the original proportional patch http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201045711.GA18302@chrisdown.name ("mm, memcg: Handle cgroup_disable=memory when getting memcg protection"). Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201051810.GA18895@chrisdown.name Signed-off-by: Chris Down Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Dennis Zhou Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim

2019-10-07T22:47:20+00:00

cgroup v2 introduces two memory protection thresholds: memory.low (best-effort) and memory.min (hard protection). While they generally do what they say on the tin, there is a limitation in their implementation that makes them difficult to use effectively: that cliff behaviour often manifests when they become eligible for reclaim. This patch implements more intuitive and usable behaviour, where we gradually mount more reclaim pressure as cgroups further and further exceed their protection thresholds. This cliff edge behaviour happens because we only choose whether or not to reclaim based on whether the memcg is within its protection limits (see the use of mem_cgroup_protected in shrink_node), but we don't vary our reclaim behaviour based on this information. Imagine the following timeline, with the numbers the lruvec size in this zone: 1. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=999999. 0 pages may be scanned. 2. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=1000000. 0 pages may be scanned. 3. memory.low=1000000, memory.current=1000001. 1000001* pages may be scanned. (?!) * Of course, we won't usually scan all available pages in the zone even without this patch because of scan control priority, over-reclaim protection, etc. However, as shown by the tests at the end, these techniques don't sufficiently throttle such an extreme change in input, so cliff-like behaviour isn't really averted by their existence alone. Here's an example of how this plays out in practice. At Facebook, we are trying to protect various workloads from "system" software, like configuration management tools, metric collectors, etc (see this[0] case study). In order to find a suitable memory.low value, we start by determining the expected memory range within which the workload will be comfortable operating. This isn't an exact science -- memory usage deemed "comfortable" will vary over time due to user behaviour, differences in composition of work, etc, etc. As such we need to ballpark memory.low, but doing this is currently problematic: 1. If we end up setting it too low for the workload, it won't have *any* effect (see discussion above). The group will receive the full weight of reclaim and won't have any priority while competing with the less important system software, as if we had no memory.low configured at all. 2. Because of this behaviour, we end up erring on the side of setting it too high, such that the comfort range is reliably covered. However, protected memory is completely unavailable to the rest of the system, so we might cause undue memory and IO pressure there when we *know* we have some elasticity in the workload. 3. Even if we get the value totally right, smack in the middle of the comfort zone, we get extreme jumps between no pressure and full pressure that cause unpredictable pressure spikes in the workload due to the current binary reclaim behaviour. With this patch, we can set it to our ballpark estimation without too much worry. Any undesirable behaviour, such as too much or too little reclaim pressure on the workload or system will be proportional to how far our estimation is off. This means we can set memory.low much more conservatively and thus waste less resources *without* the risk of the workload falling off a cliff if we overshoot. As a more abstract technical description, this unintuitive behaviour results in having to give high-priority workloads a large protection buffer on top of their expected usage to function reliably, as otherwise we have abrupt periods of dramatically increased memory pressure which hamper performance. Having to set these thresholds so high wastes resources and generally works against the principle of work conservation. In addition, having proportional memory reclaim behaviour has other benefits. Most notably, before this patch it's basically mandatory to set memory.low to a higher than desirable value because otherwise as soon as you exceed memory.low, all protection is lost, and all pages are eligible to scan again. By contrast, having a gradual ramp in reclaim pressure means that you now still get some protection when thresholds are exceeded, which means that one can now be more comfortable setting memory.low to lower values without worrying that all protection will be lost. This is important because workingset size is really hard to know exactly, especially with variable workloads, so at least getting *some* protection if your workingset size grows larger than you expect increases user confidence in setting memory.low without a huge buffer on top being needed. Thanks a lot to Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo for their advice and assistance in thinking about how to make this work better. In testing these changes, I intended to verify that: 1. Changes in page scanning become gradual and proportional instead of binary. To test this, I experimented stepping further and further down memory.low protection on a workload that floats around 19G workingset when under memory.low protection, watching page scan rates for the workload cgroup: +------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+ | memory.low | test (pgscan/s) | control (pgscan/s) | % of control | +------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+ | 21G | 0 | 0 | N/A | | 17G | 867 | 3799 | 23% | | 12G | 1203 | 3543 | 34% | | 8G | 2534 | 3979 | 64% | | 4G | 3980 | 4147 | 96% | | 0 | 3799 | 3980 | 95% | +------------+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+ As you can see, the test kernel (with a kernel containing this patch) ramps up page scanning significantly more gradually than the control kernel (without this patch). 2. More gradual ramp up in reclaim aggression doesn't result in premature OOMs. To test this, I wrote a script that slowly increments the number of pages held by stress(1)'s --vm-keep mode until a production system entered severe overall memory contention. This script runs in a highly protected slice taking up the majority of available system memory. Watching vmstat revealed that page scanning continued essentially nominally between test and control, without causing forward reclaim progress to become arrested. [0]: https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/cgroup2/docs/overview.html#case-study-the-fbtax2-project [akpm@linux-foundation.org: reflow block comments to fit in 80 cols] [chris@chrisdown.name: handle cgroup_disable=memory when getting memcg protection] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201045711.GA18302@chrisdown.name Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190124014455.GA6396@chrisdown.name Signed-off-by: Chris Down Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Dennis Zhou Cc: Tetsuo Handa Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

memcg: only record foreign writebacks with dirty pages when memcg is not disabled

2019-10-07T22:47:19+00:00

In kdump kernel, memcg usually is disabled with 'cgroup_disable=memory' for saving memory. Now kdump kernel will always panic when dump vmcore to local disk: BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000ab8 Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI CPU: 0 PID: 598 Comm: makedumpfile Not tainted 5.3.0+ #26 Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL385 Gen10/ProLiant DL385 Gen10, BIOS A40 10/02/2018 RIP: 0010:mem_cgroup_track_foreign_dirty_slowpath+0x38/0x140 Call Trace: __set_page_dirty+0x52/0xc0 iomap_set_page_dirty+0x50/0x90 iomap_write_end+0x6e/0x270 iomap_write_actor+0xce/0x170 iomap_apply+0xba/0x11e iomap_file_buffered_write+0x62/0x90 xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0xca/0x320 [xfs] new_sync_write+0x12d/0x1d0 vfs_write+0xa5/0x1a0 ksys_write+0x59/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x59/0x1e0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 And this will corrupt the 1st kernel too with 'cgroup_disable=memory'. Via the trace and with debugging, it is pointing to commit 97b27821b485 ("writeback, memcg: Implement foreign dirty flushing") which introduced this regression. Disabling memcg causes the null pointer dereference at uninitialized data in function mem_cgroup_track_foreign_dirty_slowpath(). Fix it by returning directly if memcg is disabled, but not trying to record the foreign writebacks with dirty pages. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190924141928.GD31919@MiWiFi-R3L-srv Fixes: 97b27821b485 ("writeback, memcg: Implement foreign dirty flushing") Signed-off-by: Baoquan He Acked-by: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Jan Kara Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware

2019-09-24T22:54:11+00:00

Currently THP deferred split shrinker is not memcg aware, this may cause premature OOM with some configuration. For example the below test would run into premature OOM easily: $ cgcreate -g memory:thp $ echo 4G > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/thp/memory/limit_in_bytes $ cgexec -g memory:thp transhuge-stress 4000 transhuge-stress comes from kernel selftest. It is easy to hit OOM, but there are still a lot THP on the deferred split queue, memcg direct reclaim can't touch them since the deferred split shrinker is not memcg aware. Convert deferred split shrinker memcg aware by introducing per memcg deferred split queue. The THP should be on either per node or per memcg deferred split queue if it belongs to a memcg. When the page is immigrated to the other memcg, it will be immigrated to the target memcg's deferred split queue too. Reuse the second tail page's deferred_list for per memcg list since the same THP can't be on multiple deferred split queues. [yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com: simplify deferred split queue dereference per Kirill Tkhai] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1566496227-84952-5-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1565144277-36240-5-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Yang Shi Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: "Kirill A . Shutemov" Cc: Hugh Dickins Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: David Rientjes Cc: Qian Cai Cc: Vladimir Davydov Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: shrinker: make shrinker not depend on memcg kmem

2019-09-24T22:54:11+00:00

Currently shrinker is just allocated and can work when memcg kmem is enabled. But, THP deferred split shrinker is not slab shrinker, it doesn't make too much sense to have such shrinker depend on memcg kmem. It should be able to reclaim THP even though memcg kmem is disabled. Introduce a new shrinker flag, SHRINKER_NONSLAB, for non-slab shrinker. When memcg kmem is disabled, just such shrinkers can be called in shrinking memcg slab. [yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com: add comment] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1566496227-84952-4-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1565144277-36240-4-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Yang Shi Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov Reviewed-by: Kirill Tkhai Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: "Kirill A . Shutemov" Cc: Hugh Dickins Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: David Rientjes Cc: Qian Cai Cc: Vladimir Davydov Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds