Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: split khugepaged stats from direct reclaim stats

[Johannes Weiner]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:43:24PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 7:15 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:41:21PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > My 2c, if we care about direct reclaim as in reclaim that may stall
> > > user space application allocations, then there are other reclaim
> > > contexts that may pollute the direct reclaim stats. For instance,
> > > proactive reclaim, or reclaim done by writing a limit lower than the
> > > current usage to memory.max or memory.high, as they are not done in
> > > the context of the application allocating memory.
> > >
> > > At Google, we have some internal direct reclaim memcg statistics, and
> > > the way we handle this is by passing a flag from such contexts to
> > > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() in the reclaim_options arg. This flag
> > > is echod into a scan_struct bit, which we then use to filter out
> > > direct reclaim operations that actually cause latencies in user space
> > > allocations.
> > >
> > > Perhaps something similar might be more generic here? I am not sure
> > > what context khugepaged reclaims memory from, but I think it's not a
> > > memcg context, so maybe we want to generalize the reclaim_options arg
> > > to try_to_free_pages() or whatever interface khugepaged uses to free
> > > memory.
> >
> > So at the /proc/vmstat level, I'm not sure it matters much because it
> > doesn't count any cgroup_reclaim() activity.
> >
> > But at the cgroup level, it sure would be nice to split out proactive
> > reclaim churn. Both in terms of not polluting direct reclaim counts,
> > but also for *knowing* how much proactive reclaim is doing.
> >
> > Do you have separate counters for this?
> 
> Not yet. Currently we only have the first part, not polluting direct
> reclaim counts.
> 
> We basically exclude reclaim coming from memory.reclaim, setting
> memory.max/memory.limit_in_bytes, memory.high (on write, not hitting
> the high limit), and memory.force_empty from direct reclaim stats.
> 
> As for having a separate counter for proactive reclaim, do you think
> it should be limited to reclaim coming from memory.reclaim (and
> potentially memory.force_empty), or should it include reclaim coming
> from limit-setting as well?

A combined counter seems reasonable to me. We *have* used the limit
knobs to drive proactive reclaim in production in the past, so it's
not a stretch. And I can't think of a scenario where you'd like them
to be separate.

I could think of two ways of describing it:

pgscan_user: User-requested reclaim. Could be confusing if we ever
have an in-kernel proactive reclaim driver - unless that would then go
to another counter (new or kswapd).

pgscan_ext: Reclaim activity from extraordinary/external
requests. External as in: outside the allocation context.