| Memory Resource Controller | |
| NOTE: The Memory Resource Controller has been generically been referred | |
| to as the memory controller in this document. Do not confuse memory controller | |
| used here with the memory controller that is used in hardware. | |
| Salient features | |
| a. Enable control of both RSS (mapped) and Page Cache (unmapped) pages | |
| b. The infrastructure allows easy addition of other types of memory to control | |
| c. Provides *zero overhead* for non memory controller users | |
| d. Provides a double LRU: global memory pressure causes reclaim from the | |
| global LRU; a cgroup on hitting a limit, reclaims from the per | |
| cgroup LRU | |
| NOTE: Swap Cache (unmapped) is not accounted now. | |
| Benefits and Purpose of the memory controller | |
| The memory controller isolates the memory behaviour of a group of tasks | |
| from the rest of the system. The article on LWN [12] mentions some probable | |
| uses of the memory controller. The memory controller can be used to | |
| a. Isolate an application or a group of applications | |
| Memory hungry applications can be isolated and limited to a smaller | |
| amount of memory. | |
| b. Create a cgroup with limited amount of memory, this can be used | |
| as a good alternative to booting with mem=XXXX. | |
| c. Virtualization solutions can control the amount of memory they want | |
| to assign to a virtual machine instance. | |
| d. A CD/DVD burner could control the amount of memory used by the | |
| rest of the system to ensure that burning does not fail due to lack | |
| of available memory. | |
| e. There are several other use cases, find one or use the controller just | |
| for fun (to learn and hack on the VM subsystem). | |
| 1. History | |
| The memory controller has a long history. A request for comments for the memory | |
| controller was posted by Balbir Singh [1]. At the time the RFC was posted | |
| there were several implementations for memory control. The goal of the | |
| RFC was to build consensus and agreement for the minimal features required | |
| for memory control. The first RSS controller was posted by Balbir Singh[2] | |
| in Feb 2007. Pavel Emelianov [3][4][5] has since posted three versions of the | |
| RSS controller. At OLS, at the resource management BoF, everyone suggested | |
| that we handle both page cache and RSS together. Another request was raised | |
| to allow user space handling of OOM. The current memory controller is | |
| at version 6; it combines both mapped (RSS) and unmapped Page | |
| Cache Control [11]. | |
| 2. Memory Control | |
| Memory is a unique resource in the sense that it is present in a limited | |
| amount. If a task requires a lot of CPU processing, the task can spread | |
| its processing over a period of hours, days, months or years, but with | |
| memory, the same physical memory needs to be reused to accomplish the task. | |
| The memory controller implementation has been divided into phases. These | |
| are: | |
| 1. Memory controller | |
| 2. mlock(2) controller | |
| 3. Kernel user memory accounting and slab control | |
| 4. user mappings length controller | |
| The memory controller is the first controller developed. | |
| 2.1. Design | |
| The core of the design is a counter called the res_counter. The res_counter | |
| tracks the current memory usage and limit of the group of processes associated | |
| with the controller. Each cgroup has a memory controller specific data | |
| structure (mem_cgroup) associated with it. | |
| 2.2. Accounting | |
| +--------------------+ | |
| | mem_cgroup | | |
| | (res_counter) | | |
| +--------------------+ | |
| / ^ \ | |
| / | \ | |
| +---------------+ | +---------------+ | |
| | mm_struct | |.... | mm_struct | | |
| | | | | | | |
| +---------------+ | +---------------+ | |
| | | |
| + --------------+ | |
| | | |
| +---------------+ +------+--------+ | |
| | page +----------> page_cgroup| | |
| | | | | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| (Figure 1: Hierarchy of Accounting) | |
| Figure 1 shows the important aspects of the controller | |
| 1. Accounting happens per cgroup | |
| 2. Each mm_struct knows about which cgroup it belongs to | |
| 3. Each page has a pointer to the page_cgroup, which in turn knows the | |
| cgroup it belongs to | |
| The accounting is done as follows: mem_cgroup_charge() is invoked to setup | |
| the necessary data structures and check if the cgroup that is being charged | |
| is over its limit. If it is then reclaim is invoked on the cgroup. | |
| More details can be found in the reclaim section of this document. | |
| If everything goes well, a page meta-data-structure called page_cgroup is | |
| allocated and associated with the page. This routine also adds the page to | |
| the per cgroup LRU. | |
| 2.2.1 Accounting details | |
| All mapped pages (RSS) and unmapped user pages (Page Cache) are accounted. | |
| RSS pages are accounted at the time of page_add_*_rmap() unless they've already | |
| been accounted for earlier. A file page will be accounted for as Page Cache; | |
| it's mapped into the page tables of a process, duplicate accounting is carefully | |
| avoided. Page Cache pages are accounted at the time of add_to_page_cache(). | |
| The corresponding routines that remove a page from the page tables or removes | |
| a page from Page Cache is used to decrement the accounting counters of the | |
| cgroup. | |
| 2.3 Shared Page Accounting | |
| Shared pages are accounted on the basis of the first touch approach. The | |
| cgroup that first touches a page is accounted for the page. The principle | |
| behind this approach is that a cgroup that aggressively uses a shared | |
| page will eventually get charged for it (once it is uncharged from | |
| the cgroup that brought it in -- this will happen on memory pressure). | |
| 2.4 Reclaim | |
| Each cgroup maintains a per cgroup LRU that consists of an active | |
| and inactive list. When a cgroup goes over its limit, we first try | |
| to reclaim memory from the cgroup so as to make space for the new | |
| pages that the cgroup has touched. If the reclaim is unsuccessful, | |
| an OOM routine is invoked to select and kill the bulkiest task in the | |
| cgroup. | |
| The reclaim algorithm has not been modified for cgroups, except that | |
| pages that are selected for reclaiming come from the per cgroup LRU | |
| list. | |
| 2. Locking | |
| The memory controller uses the following hierarchy | |
| 1. zone->lru_lock is used for selecting pages to be isolated | |
| 2. mem->per_zone->lru_lock protects the per cgroup LRU (per zone) | |
| 3. lock_page_cgroup() is used to protect page->page_cgroup | |
| 3. User Interface | |
| 0. Configuration | |
| a. Enable CONFIG_CGROUPS | |
| b. Enable CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS | |
| c. Enable CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR | |
| 1. Prepare the cgroups | |
| # mkdir -p /cgroups | |
| # mount -t cgroup none /cgroups -o memory | |
| 2. Make the new group and move bash into it | |
| # mkdir /cgroups/0 | |
| # echo $$ > /cgroups/0/tasks | |
| Since now we're in the 0 cgroup, | |
| We can alter the memory limit: | |
| # echo 4M > /cgroups/0/memory.limit_in_bytes | |
| NOTE: We can use a suffix (k, K, m, M, g or G) to indicate values in kilo, | |
| mega or gigabytes. | |
| # cat /cgroups/0/memory.limit_in_bytes | |
| 4194304 | |
| NOTE: The interface has now changed to display the usage in bytes | |
| instead of pages | |
| We can check the usage: | |
| # cat /cgroups/0/memory.usage_in_bytes | |
| 1216512 | |
| A successful write to this file does not guarantee a successful set of | |
| this limit to the value written into the file. This can be due to a | |
| number of factors, such as rounding up to page boundaries or the total | |
| availability of memory on the system. The user is required to re-read | |
| this file after a write to guarantee the value committed by the kernel. | |
| # echo 1 > memory.limit_in_bytes | |
| # cat memory.limit_in_bytes | |
| 4096 | |
| The memory.failcnt field gives the number of times that the cgroup limit was | |
| exceeded. | |
| The memory.stat file gives accounting information. Now, the number of | |
| caches, RSS and Active pages/Inactive pages are shown. | |
| The memory.force_empty gives an interface to drop *all* charges by force. | |
| # echo 1 > memory.force_empty | |
| will drop all charges in cgroup. Currently, this is maintained for test. | |
| 4. Testing | |
| Balbir posted lmbench, AIM9, LTP and vmmstress results [10] and [11]. | |
| Apart from that v6 has been tested with several applications and regular | |
| daily use. The controller has also been tested on the PPC64, x86_64 and | |
| UML platforms. | |
| 4.1 Troubleshooting | |
| Sometimes a user might find that the application under a cgroup is | |
| terminated. There are several causes for this: | |
| 1. The cgroup limit is too low (just too low to do anything useful) | |
| 2. The user is using anonymous memory and swap is turned off or too low | |
| A sync followed by echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches will help get rid of | |
| some of the pages cached in the cgroup (page cache pages). | |
| 4.2 Task migration | |
| When a task migrates from one cgroup to another, it's charge is not | |
| carried forward. The pages allocated from the original cgroup still | |
| remain charged to it, the charge is dropped when the page is freed or | |
| reclaimed. | |
| 4.3 Removing a cgroup | |
| A cgroup can be removed by rmdir, but as discussed in sections 4.1 and 4.2, a | |
| cgroup might have some charge associated with it, even though all | |
| tasks have migrated away from it. Such charges are automatically dropped at | |
| rmdir() if there are no tasks. | |
| 5. TODO | |
| 1. Add support for accounting huge pages (as a separate controller) | |
| 2. Make per-cgroup scanner reclaim not-shared pages first | |
| 3. Teach controller to account for shared-pages | |
| 4. Start reclamation in the background when the limit is | |
| not yet hit but the usage is getting closer | |
| Summary | |
| Overall, the memory controller has been a stable controller and has been | |
| commented and discussed quite extensively in the community. | |
| References | |
| 1. Singh, Balbir. RFC: Memory Controller, http://lwn.net/Articles/206697/ | |
| 2. Singh, Balbir. Memory Controller (RSS Control), | |
| http://lwn.net/Articles/222762/ | |
| 3. Emelianov, Pavel. Resource controllers based on process cgroups | |
| http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/6/198 | |
| 4. Emelianov, Pavel. RSS controller based on process cgroups (v2) | |
| http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/9/78 | |
| 5. Emelianov, Pavel. RSS controller based on process cgroups (v3) | |
| http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/30/244 | |
| 6. Menage, Paul. Control Groups v10, http://lwn.net/Articles/236032/ | |
| 7. Vaidyanathan, Srinivasan, Control Groups: Pagecache accounting and control | |
| subsystem (v3), http://lwn.net/Articles/235534/ | |
| 8. Singh, Balbir. RSS controller v2 test results (lmbench), | |
| http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/17/232 | |
| 9. Singh, Balbir. RSS controller v2 AIM9 results | |
| http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/18/1 | |
| 10. Singh, Balbir. Memory controller v6 test results, | |
| http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/19/36 | |
| 11. Singh, Balbir. Memory controller introduction (v6), | |
| http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/17/69 | |
| 12. Corbet, Jonathan, Controlling memory use in cgroups, | |
| http://lwn.net/Articles/243795/ |