mm: Fix protection usage propagation

From: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>

When workload runs in cgroups that aren't directly below root cgroup and their parent specifies reclaim protection, it may end up ineffective.

The reason is that propagate_protected_usage() is not called in all hierarchy up. All the protected usage is incorrectly accumulated in the workload's parent. This means that siblings_low_usage is overestimated and effective protection underestimated. Even though it is transitional phenomenon (uncharge path does correct propagation and fixes the wrong children_low_usage), it can undermine the indended protection unexpectedly.

The fix is simply updating children_low_usage in respective ancestors also in the charging path.

Fixes 230671533d64 ("mm: memory.low hierarchical behavior")

Cc stable # 4.18+

Signed-off-by Michal Koutný <[email protected]>

Acked-by Michal Hocko <[email protected]>

---

Hi,
I am sending this patch on behalf of Michal Koutny who is currently on vacation and didn't get to post it before he left.

We have noticed this problem while seeing a swap out in a descendant of a protected memcg (intermediate node) while the parent was conveniently under its protection limit and the memory pressure was external to that hierarchy. Michal has pinpointed this down to the wrong siblings_low_usage which led to the unwanted reclaim.

I am adding my ack directly in this submission.

 mm/page_counter.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

mm/page_counter.c +3 -3

index c56db2d5e159..b4663844c9b3 100644
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ void page_counter_charge(struct page_counter *counter, unsigned long nr_pages)
 		long new;
 
 		new = atomic_long_add_return(nr_pages, &c->usage);
-		propagate_protected_usage(counter, new);
+		propagate_protected_usage(c, new);
 		/*
 		 * This is indeed racy, but we can live with some
 		 * inaccuracy in the watermark.

@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter,
 		new = atomic_long_add_return(nr_pages, &c->usage);
 		if (new > c->max) {
 			atomic_long_sub(nr_pages, &c->usage);
-			propagate_protected_usage(counter, new);
+			propagate_protected_usage(c, new);
 			/*
 			 * This is racy, but we can live with some
 			 * inaccuracy in the failcnt.

@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter,
 			*fail = c;
 			goto failed;
 		}
-		propagate_protected_usage(counter, new);
+		propagate_protected_usage(c, new);
 		/*
 		 * Just like with failcnt, we can live with some
 		 * inaccuracy in the watermark.

Signature · 1 line

2.27.0