diff options
| author | Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> | 2023-12-07 23:14:07 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> | 2023-12-12 17:20:20 -0800 |
| commit | 4376807bf2d5371c3e00080c972be568c3f8a7d1 (patch) | |
| tree | 3511cfbb0098374a82d1ab0cbafdb6da9dad8bcf /mm | |
| parent | 8aa420617918d12d1f5d55030a503c9418e73c2c (diff) | |
mm/mglru: reclaim offlined memcgs harder
In the effort to reduce zombie memcgs [1], it was discovered that the
memcg LRU doesn't apply enough pressure on offlined memcgs. Specifically,
instead of rotating them to the tail of the current generation
(MEMCG_LRU_TAIL) for a second attempt, it moves them to the next
generation (MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG) after the first attempt.
Not applying enough pressure on offlined memcgs can cause them to build
up, and this can be particularly harmful to memory-constrained systems.
On Pixel 8 Pro, launching apps for 50 cycles:
Before After Change
Zombie memcgs 45 35 -22%
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/CABdmKX2M6koq4Q0Cmp_-=wbP0Qa190HdEGGaHfxNS05gAkUtPA@mail.gmail.com/
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231208061407.2125867-4-yuzhao@google.com
Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Reported-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@google.com>
Tested-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@google.com>
Cc: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Jaroslav Pulchart <jaroslav.pulchart@gooddata.com>
Cc: Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com>
Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm')
| -rw-r--r-- | mm/vmscan.c | 24 |
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index e5fe4a94345f..9dd8977de5a2 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -4598,7 +4598,12 @@ static bool should_run_aging(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long max_seq, } /* try to scrape all its memory if this memcg was deleted */ - *nr_to_scan = mem_cgroup_online(memcg) ? (total >> sc->priority) : total; + if (!mem_cgroup_online(memcg)) { + *nr_to_scan = total; + return false; + } + + *nr_to_scan = total >> sc->priority; /* * The aging tries to be lazy to reduce the overhead, while the eviction @@ -4719,14 +4724,9 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc) bool success; unsigned long scanned = sc->nr_scanned; unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed; - int seg = lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec); struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec); struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec); - /* see the comment on MEMCG_NR_GENS */ - if (!lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc)) - return seg != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL ? MEMCG_LRU_TAIL : MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg); if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg)) @@ -4734,7 +4734,7 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc) if (mem_cgroup_below_low(NULL, memcg)) { /* see the comment on MEMCG_NR_GENS */ - if (seg != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL) + if (lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec) != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL) return MEMCG_LRU_TAIL; memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW); @@ -4750,7 +4750,15 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc) flush_reclaim_state(sc); - return success ? MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG : 0; + if (success && mem_cgroup_online(memcg)) + return MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; + + if (!success && lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc)) + return 0; + + /* one retry if offlined or too small */ + return lru_gen_memcg_seg(lruvec) != MEMCG_LRU_TAIL ? + MEMCG_LRU_TAIL : MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG; } #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG |