| From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> |
| Subject: selftests: memcg: adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups |
| Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 18:18:57 +0200 |
| |
| The numbers are not easy to derive in a closed form (certainly mere |
| protections ratios do not apply), therefore use a simulation to obtain |
| expected numbers. |
| |
| Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220518161859.21565-4-mkoutny@suse.com |
| Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> |
| Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> |
| Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> |
| Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> |
| Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
| Cc: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de> |
| Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> |
| Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
| --- |
| |
| MAINTAINERS | 1 |
| tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/memcg_protection.m | 89 ++++++++++++ |
| tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 29 ++- |
| 3 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) |
| |
| --- a/MAINTAINERS~selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups |
| +++ a/MAINTAINERS |
| @@ -5029,6 +5029,7 @@ L: linux-mm@kvack.org |
| S: Maintained |
| F: mm/memcontrol.c |
| F: mm/swap_cgroup.c |
| +F: tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/memcg_protection.m |
| F: tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_kmem.c |
| F: tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c |
| |
| --- /dev/null |
| +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/memcg_protection.m |
| @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ |
| +% SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 |
| +% |
| +% run as: octave-cli memcg_protection.m |
| +% |
| +% This script simulates reclaim protection behavior on a single level of memcg |
| +% hierarchy to illustrate how overcommitted protection spreads among siblings |
| +% (as it depends also on their current consumption). |
| +% |
| +% Simulation assumes siblings consumed the initial amount of memory (w/out |
| +% reclaim) and then the reclaim starts, all memory is reclaimable, i.e. treated |
| +% same. It simulates only non-low reclaim and assumes all memory.min = 0. |
| +% |
| +% Input configurations |
| +% -------------------- |
| +% E number parent effective protection |
| +% n vector nominal protection of siblings set at the given level (memory.low) |
| +% c vector current consumption -,,- (memory.current) |
| + |
| +% example from testcase (values in GB) |
| +E = 50 / 1024; |
| +n = [75 25 0 500 ] / 1024; |
| +c = [50 50 50 0] / 1024; |
| + |
| +% Reclaim parameters |
| +% ------------------ |
| + |
| +% Minimal reclaim amount (GB) |
| +cluster = 32*4 / 2**20; |
| + |
| +% Reclaim coefficient (think as 0.5^sc->priority) |
| +alpha = .1 |
| + |
| +% Simulation parameters |
| +% --------------------- |
| +epsilon = 1e-7; |
| +timeout = 1000; |
| + |
| +% Simulation loop |
| +% --------------- |
| + |
| +ch = []; |
| +eh = []; |
| +rh = []; |
| + |
| +for t = 1:timeout |
| + % low_usage |
| + u = min(c, n); |
| + siblings = sum(u); |
| + |
| + % effective_protection() |
| + protected = min(n, c); % start with nominal |
| + e = protected * min(1, E / siblings); % normalize overcommit |
| + |
| + % recursive protection |
| + unclaimed = max(0, E - siblings); |
| + parent_overuse = sum(c) - siblings; |
| + if (unclaimed > 0 && parent_overuse > 0) |
| + overuse = max(0, c - protected); |
| + e += unclaimed * (overuse / parent_overuse); |
| + endif |
| + |
| + % get_scan_count() |
| + r = alpha * c; % assume all memory is in a single LRU list |
| + |
| + % commit 1bc63fb1272b ("mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection") |
| + sz = max(e, c); |
| + r .*= (1 - (e+epsilon) ./ (sz+epsilon)); |
| + |
| + % uncomment to debug prints |
| + % e, c, r |
| + |
| + % nothing to reclaim, reached equilibrium |
| + if max(r) < epsilon |
| + break; |
| + endif |
| + |
| + % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX roundup |
| + r = max(r, (r > epsilon) .* cluster); |
| + % XXX here I do parallel reclaim of all siblings |
| + % in reality reclaim is serialized and each sibling recalculates own residual |
| + c = max(c - r, 0); |
| + |
| + ch = [ch ; c]; |
| + eh = [eh ; e]; |
| + rh = [rh ; r]; |
| +endfor |
| + |
| +t |
| +c, e |
| --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c~selftests-memcg-adjust-expected-reclaim-values-of-protected-cgroups |
| +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c |
| @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const cha |
| /* |
| * First, this test creates the following hierarchy: |
| * A memory.min = 50M, memory.max = 200M |
| - * A/B memory.min = 50M, memory.current = 50M |
| + * A/B memory.min = 50M |
| * A/B/C memory.min = 75M, memory.current = 50M |
| * A/B/D memory.min = 25M, memory.current = 50M |
| * A/B/E memory.min = 0, memory.current = 50M |
| @@ -259,10 +259,13 @@ static int cg_test_proc_killed(const cha |
| * Then it creates A/G and creates a significant |
| * memory pressure in it. |
| * |
| + * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: |
| * A/B memory.current ~= 50M |
| - * A/B/C memory.current ~= 33M |
| - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M |
| - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 |
| + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M |
| + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M |
| + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 |
| + * A/B/F memory.current = 0 |
| + * (for origin of the numbers, see model in memcg_protection.m.) |
| * |
| * After that it tries to allocate more than there is |
| * unprotected memory in A available, and checks |
| @@ -365,10 +368,10 @@ static int test_memcg_min(const char *ro |
| for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) |
| c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); |
| |
| - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) |
| + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) |
| goto cleanup; |
| |
| - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) |
| + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) |
| goto cleanup; |
| |
| if (c[3] != 0) |
| @@ -405,7 +408,7 @@ cleanup: |
| /* |
| * First, this test creates the following hierarchy: |
| * A memory.low = 50M, memory.max = 200M |
| - * A/B memory.low = 50M, memory.current = 50M |
| + * A/B memory.low = 50M |
| * A/B/C memory.low = 75M, memory.current = 50M |
| * A/B/D memory.low = 25M, memory.current = 50M |
| * A/B/E memory.low = 0, memory.current = 50M |
| @@ -417,9 +420,11 @@ cleanup: |
| * |
| * Then it checks actual memory usages and expects that: |
| * A/B memory.current ~= 50M |
| - * A/B/ memory.current ~= 33M |
| - * A/B/D memory.current ~= 17M |
| - * A/B/F memory.current ~= 0 |
| + * A/B/C memory.current ~= 29M |
| + * A/B/D memory.current ~= 21M |
| + * A/B/E memory.current ~= 0 |
| + * A/B/F memory.current = 0 |
| + * (for origin of the numbers, see model in memcg_protection.m.) |
| * |
| * After that it tries to allocate more than there is |
| * unprotected memory in A available, |
| @@ -512,10 +517,10 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *ro |
| for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) |
| c[i] = cg_read_long(children[i], "memory.current"); |
| |
| - if (!values_close(c[0], MB(33), 10)) |
| + if (!values_close(c[0], MB(29), 10)) |
| goto cleanup; |
| |
| - if (!values_close(c[1], MB(17), 10)) |
| + if (!values_close(c[1], MB(21), 10)) |
| goto cleanup; |
| |
| if (c[3] != 0) |
| _ |