There were apparently good reasons for moving away from OOM notifier
callback:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/12/314
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/2/322

In particular the OOM notifier is worse than the shrinker because:

   1. It is last-resort, which means the system has already gone through
   heroics to prevent OOM. Those heroic reclaim efforts are expensive and
   impact application performance.
   2. It lacks understanding of NUMA or other OOM constraints.
   3. It has a higher potential for bugs due to the subtlety of the
   callback context.

Given the above, I think the shrinker API certainly makes the most sense
_if_ the balloon size is static. In that case memory should be reclaimed
from the balloon early and proportionally to balloon size, which the
shrinker API achieves.

However, if the balloon is inflating and intentionally causing memory
pressure then this results in the inefficiency pointed out earlier.

If the balloon is inflating but not causing memory pressure then there is
no problem with either API.

This suggests another route: rather than cause memory pressure to shrink
the page cache, the balloon could issue the equivalent of "echo 3 >
/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches".
Of course ideally, we want to be more fine grained than "drop everything".
We really want an API that says "drop everything that hasn't been accessed
in the last 5 minutes".

This would eliminate the need for the balloon to cause memory pressure at
all which avoids the inefficiency in question. Furthermore, this pairs
nicely with the FREE_PAGE_HINT feature.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:04 AM Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 05:34:20PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 03.02.20 17:18, Alexander Duyck wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 08:11 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:59:46AM -0800, Tyler Sanderson wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 7:31 AM Wang, Wei W [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    On Thursday, January 30, 2020 11:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
    > On 29.01.20 20:11, Tyler Sanderson wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:31 AM David Hildenbrand <

david@redhat.com

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    > > <mailto:david@redhat.com>> wrote:
    > >
    > >     On 29.01.20 01:22, Tyler Sanderson via Virtualization

wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    > >     > A primary advantage of virtio balloon over other

memory reclaim

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    > >     > mechanisms is that it can pressure the guest's page

cache into

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    > >     shrinking.
    > >     >
    > >     > However, since the balloon driver changed to using the

shrinker

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    API
    > >     >
    > >
    > <

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/71994620bb25a8b109388fefa9

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    > e99a28e355255a#diff-fd202acf694d9eba19c8c64da3e480c9> this
    > >     > use case has become a bit more tricky. I'm wondering

what the

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    > intended
    > >     > device implementation is.
    > >     >
    > >     > When inflating the balloon against page cache (i.e. no

free

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    memory
    > >     > remains) vmscan.c will both shrink page cache, but

also invoke

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    the
    > >     > shrinkers -- including the balloon's shrinker. So the

balloon

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    driver
    > >     > allocates memory which requires reclaim, vmscan gets

this memory

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    > by
    > >     > shrinking the balloon, and then the driver adds the

memory back

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    to
    > the
    > >     > balloon. Basically a busy no-op.

    Per my understanding, the balloon allocation won’t invoke

shrinker as

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

    __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM isn't set, no?

I could be wrong about the mechanism, but the device sees lots of

activity on

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

the deflate queue. The balloon is being shrunk. And this only starts

once all

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

free memory is depleted and we're inflating into page cache.

So given this looks like a regression, maybe we should revert the
patch in question 71994620bb25 ("virtio_balloon: replace oom notifier

with shrinker")

quoted

quoted

quoted

Besides, with VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT
shrinker also ignores VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_MUST_TELL_HOST which isn't nice
at all.

So it looks like all this rework introduced more issues than it
addressed ...

I also CC Alex Duyck for an opinion on this.
Alex, what do you use to put pressure on page cache?

I would say reverting probably makes sense. I'm not sure there is much
value to having a shrinker running deflation when you are actively

trying

quoted

quoted

to increase the balloon. It would make more sense to wait until you are
actually about to start hitting oom.

I think the shrinker makes sense for free page hinting feature
(everything on free_page_list).

So instead of only reverting, I think we should split it up and always
register the shrinker for VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT and the OOM
notifier (as before) for VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_MUST_TELL_HOST.

OK ... I guess that means we need to fix shrinker to take
VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_MUST_TELL_HOST into account correctly.
Hosts ignore it at the moment but it's a fragile thing
to do what it does and ignore used buffers.

quoted

(Of course, adapting what is being done in the shrinker and in the OOM
notifier)

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb