Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] sock: Consider memcg pressure when raising sockmem
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: 2023-05-23 10:27:09
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 17:46 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
For now __sk_mem_raise_allocated() mainly considers global socket memory pressure and allows to raise if no global pressure observed, including the sockets whose memcgs are in pressure, which might result in longer memcg memstall. So take net-memcg's pressure into consideration when allocating socket memory to alleviate long tail latencies. Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <redacted> --- net/core/sock.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c index 801df091e37a..b899e0b9feda 100644 --- a/net/core/sock.c +++ b/net/core/sock.c@@ -2976,22 +2976,31 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_wait_data); int __sk_mem_raise_allocated(struct sock *sk, int size, int amt, int kind) { bool memcg_charge = mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled && sk->sk_memcg; + bool charged = true, pressured = false; struct proto *prot = sk->sk_prot; - bool charged = true; long allocated; sk_memory_allocated_add(sk, amt); allocated = sk_memory_allocated(sk); - if (memcg_charge && - !(charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt, - gfp_memcg_charge()))) - goto suppress_allocation; + + if (memcg_charge) { + charged = mem_cgroup_charge_skmem(sk->sk_memcg, amt, + gfp_memcg_charge()); + if (!charged) + goto suppress_allocation; + if (mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure(sk->sk_memcg)) + pressured = true; + } /* Under limit. */ - if (allocated <= sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 0)) { + if (allocated <= sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 0)) sk_leave_memory_pressure(sk); + else + pressured = true;
The above looks not correct to me. allocated > sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 0) does not mean the protocol has memory pressure. Such condition is checked later with: if (allocated > sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 1)) Here an allocation could fail even if memcg charge is successful and the protocol is not under pressure, which in turn sounds quite (too much?) conservative. Cheers, Paolo