On Thu 25-02-21 14:48:58, Tim Chen wrote:
>
>
> On 2/24/21 3:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 22-02-21 11:48:37, Tim Chen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/22/21 11:09 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I actually have tried adjusting the threshold but found that it doesn't
> >>>> work well for
> >>>> the case with unenven memory access frequency between cgroups. The soft
> >>>> limit for the low memory event cgroup could creep up quite a lot,
> >>>> exceeding
> >>>> the soft limit by hundreds of MB, even
> >>>> if I drop the SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_TARGET from 1024 to something like 8.
> >>>
> >>> What was the underlying reason? Higher order allocations?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not high order allocation.
> >>
> >> The reason was because the run away memcg asks for memory much less often,
> >> compared
> >> to the other memcgs in the system. So it escapes the sampling update and
> >> was not put onto the tree and exceeds the soft limit
> >> pretty badly. Even if it was put onto the tree and gets page reclaimed
> >> below the
> >> limit, it could escape the sampling the next time it exceeds the soft
> >> limit.
> >
> > I am sorry but I really do not follow. Maybe I am missing something
> > obvious but the the rate of events (charge/uncharge) shouldn't be really
> > important. There is no way to exceed the limit without charging memory
> > (either a new or via task migration in v1 and immigrate_on_move). If you
> > have SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_TARGET 8 then you should be 128 * 8 events to
> > re-evaluate. Huge pages can make the runaway much bigger but how it
> > would be possible to runaway outside of that bound.
>
>
> Michal,
>
> Let's take an extreme case where memcg 1 always generate the
> first event and memcg 2 generates the rest of 128*8-1 events
> and the pattern repeat.
I do not follow. Events are per-memcg, aren't they?
__this_cpu_read(memcg->vmstats_percpu->targets[target]);
[...]
__this_cpu_write(memcg->vmstats_percpu->targets[target], next);
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
