Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates

On Fri 19-02-21 11:28:47, Tim Chen wrote:

On 2/19/21 1:16 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

quoted

Something like this?

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 8bddee75f5cb..b50cae3b2a1a 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c

@@ -3472,6 +3472,14 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order,
                if (!mz)
                        break;

+               /*
+                * Soft limit tree is updated based on memcg events sampling.
+                * We could have missed some updates on page uncharge and
+                * the cgroup is below soft limit.  Skip useless soft reclaim.
+                */
+               if (!soft_limit_excess(mz->memcg))
+                       continue;
+
                nr_scanned = 0;
                reclaimed = mem_cgroup_soft_reclaim(mz->memcg, pgdat,

Yes I meant something like this but then I have looked more closely and
this shouldn't be needed afterall. __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node
already does all the work
        if (!soft_limit_excess(mz->memcg) ||
            !css_tryget(&mz->memcg->css))
                goto retry;
so this shouldn't really happen.

Ah, that's true.  The added check for soft_limit_excess is not needed.

Do you think it is still a good idea to add patch 3 to
restrict the uncharge update in page batch of the same node and cgroup?

I would rather drop it. The less the soft limit reclaim code is spread
around the better.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs