From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Dave Shrinnker <david@fromorbit.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
hughd@google.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 23/32] lru: add an element to a memcg list
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 18:00:50 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1365429659-22108-24-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1365429659-22108-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>
With the infrastructure we now have, we can add an element to a memcg
LRU list instead of the global list. The memcg lists are still
per-node.
Technically, we will never trigger per-node shrinking in the memcg is
short of memory. Therefore an alternative to this would be to add the
element to *both* a single-node memcg array and a per-node global array.
There are two main reasons for this design choice:
1) adding an extra list_head to each of the objects would waste 16-bytes
per object, always remembering that we are talking about 1 dentry + 1
inode in the common case. This means a close to 10 % increase in the
dentry size, and a lower yet significant increase in the inode size. In
terms of total memory, this design pays 32-byte per-superblock-per-node
(size of struct list_lru_node), which means that in any scenario where
we have more than 10 dentries + inodes, we would already be paying more
memory in the two-list-heads approach than we will here with 1 node x 10
superblocks. The turning point of course depends on the workload, but I
hope the figures above would convince you that the memory footprint is
in my side in any workload that matters.
2) The main drawback of this, namely, that we loose global LRU order, is
not really seen by me as a disadvantage: if we are using memcg to
isolate the workloads, global pressure should try to balance the amount
reclaimed from all memcgs the same way the shrinkers will already
naturally balance the amount reclaimed from each superblock. (This
patchset needs some love in this regard, btw).
To help us easily tracking down which nodes have and which nodes doesn't
have elements in the list, we will count on an auxiliary node bitmap in
the global level.
[ v2: move memcg_kmem_lru_of_page to list_lru.c and then unpublish the
auxiliary functions it uses ]
Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
include/linux/list_lru.h | 1 +
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 8 ++++
lib/list_lru.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
mm/memcontrol.c | 24 +++++++++++-
4 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/list_lru.h b/include/linux/list_lru.h
index 42af76c..ea1ab4d 100644
--- a/include/linux/list_lru.h
+++ b/include/linux/list_lru.h
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ struct list_lru_array {
struct list_lru {
struct list_lru_node node[MAX_NUMNODES];
+ atomic_long_t node_totals[MAX_NUMNODES];
nodemask_t active_nodes;
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
/* All memcg-aware LRUs will be chained in the lrus list */
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index ee3199d..1e74610 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
#include <linux/hardirq.h>
#include <linux/jump_label.h>
#include <linux/list_lru.h>
+#include <linux/mm.h>
struct mem_cgroup;
struct page_cgroup;
@@ -473,6 +474,8 @@ __memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp);
int memcg_new_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
+struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_kmem_page(struct page *page);
+
int memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(struct list_lru *lru, int num_groups,
bool new_lru);
@@ -644,6 +647,11 @@ static inline int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
{
return 0;
}
+
+static inline struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_kmem_page(struct page *page)
+{
+ return NULL;
+}
#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
#endif /* _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H */
diff --git a/lib/list_lru.c b/lib/list_lru.c
index 300b6eb..676ade7 100644
--- a/lib/list_lru.c
+++ b/lib/list_lru.c
@@ -10,19 +10,86 @@
#include <linux/list_lru.h>
#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
+/*
+ * lru_node_of_index - returns the node-lru of a specific lru
+ * @lru: the global lru we are operating at
+ * @index: if positive, the memcg id. If negative, means global lru.
+ * @nid: node id of the corresponding node we want to manipulate
+ */
+struct list_lru_node *
+lru_node_of_index(struct list_lru *lru, int index, int nid)
+{
+ struct list_lru_node *nlru;
+
+ if (index < 0) {
+ nlru = &lru->node[nid];
+ goto out_lru;
+ }
+#ifndef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+ BUG(); /* nobody should be passing index < 0 with !KMEM */
+#else
+ if (!lru->memcg_lrus)
+ return NULL;
+
+ /*
+ * because we will only ever free the memcg_lrus after synchronize_rcu,
+ * we are safe with the rcu lock here: even if we are operating in the
+ * stale version of the array, the data is still valid and we are not
+ * risking anything.
+ *
+ * The read barrier is needed to make sure that we see the pointer
+ * assigment for the specific memcg
+ */
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ rmb();
+ /* The array exist, but the particular memcg does not */
+ if (!lru->memcg_lrus[index]) {
+ nlru = NULL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ nlru = &lru->memcg_lrus[index]->node[nid];
+out:
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+#endif
+out_lru:
+ return nlru;
+}
+
+struct list_lru_node *
+memcg_kmem_lru_of_page(struct list_lru *lru, struct page *page)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_kmem_page(page);
+ int nid = page_to_nid(page);
+ int memcg_id;
+
+ if (!memcg)
+ return &lru->node[nid];
+
+ memcg_id = memcg_cache_id(memcg);
+ return lru_node_of_index(lru, memcg_id, nid);
+}
+
int
list_lru_add(
struct list_lru *lru,
struct list_head *item)
{
- int nid = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(item));
- struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
+ struct page *page = virt_to_page(item);
+ struct list_lru_node *nlru;
+ int nid = page_to_nid(page);
+
+ nlru = memcg_kmem_lru_of_page(lru, page);
spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
BUG_ON(nlru->nr_items < 0);
if (list_empty(item)) {
list_add_tail(item, &nlru->list);
- if (nlru->nr_items++ == 0)
+ nlru->nr_items++;
+ /*
+ * We only consider a node active or inactive based on the
+ * total figure for all involved children.
+ */
+ if (atomic_long_add_return(1, &lru->node_totals[nid]) == 1)
node_set(nid, lru->active_nodes);
spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
return 1;
@@ -37,14 +104,20 @@ list_lru_del(
struct list_lru *lru,
struct list_head *item)
{
- int nid = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(item));
- struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
+ struct page *page = virt_to_page(item);
+ struct list_lru_node *nlru;
+ int nid = page_to_nid(page);
+
+ nlru = memcg_kmem_lru_of_page(lru, page);
spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
if (!list_empty(item)) {
list_del_init(item);
- if (--nlru->nr_items == 0)
+ nlru->nr_items--;
+
+ if (atomic_long_dec_and_test(&lru->node_totals[nid]))
node_clear(nid, lru->active_nodes);
+
BUG_ON(nlru->nr_items < 0);
spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
return 1;
@@ -97,7 +170,7 @@ restart:
ret = isolate(item, &nlru->lock, cb_arg);
switch (ret) {
case LRU_REMOVED:
- if (--nlru->nr_items == 0)
+ if (atomic_long_dec_and_test(&lru->node_totals[nid]))
node_clear(nid, lru->active_nodes);
BUG_ON(nlru->nr_items < 0);
isolated++;
@@ -247,9 +320,6 @@ out:
void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
{
- if (!lru->memcg_lrus)
- return;
-
mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
list_del(&lru->lrus);
mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
@@ -274,8 +344,10 @@ int __list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_enabled)
int i;
nodes_clear(lru->active_nodes);
- for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++)
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++) {
list_lru_init_one(&lru->node[i]);
+ atomic_long_set(&lru->node_totals[i], 0);
+ }
if (memcg_enabled)
return memcg_init_lru(lru);
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index c6c90d8..4d61562 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -3160,9 +3160,15 @@ int memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(struct list_lru *lru, int num_groups,
* either follow the new array or the old one and they contain
* exactly the same information. The new space in the end is
* always empty anyway.
+ *
+ * We do have to make sure that no more users of the old
+ * memcg_lrus array exist before we free, and this is achieved
+ * by the synchronize_lru below.
*/
- if (lru->memcg_lrus)
+ if (lru->memcg_lrus) {
+ synchronize_rcu();
kfree(old_array);
+ }
}
if (lru->memcg_lrus) {
@@ -3306,6 +3312,22 @@ static inline void memcg_resume_kmem_account(void)
current->memcg_kmem_skip_account--;
}
+struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_kmem_page(struct page *page)
+{
+ struct page_cgroup *pc;
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
+
+ pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
+ if (!PageCgroupUsed(pc))
+ return NULL;
+
+ lock_page_cgroup(pc);
+ if (PageCgroupUsed(pc))
+ memcg = pc->mem_cgroup;
+ unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
+ return memcg;
+}
+
static void kmem_cache_destroy_work_func(struct work_struct *w)
{
struct kmem_cache *cachep;
--
1.8.1.4
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-08 14:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-08 14:00 [PATCH v3 00/32] memcg-aware slab shrinking with lasers and numbers Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 01/32] super: fix calculation of shrinkable objects for small numbers Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 02/32] vmscan: take at least one pass with shrinkers Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 03/32] dcache: convert dentry_stat.nr_unused to per-cpu counters Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 04/32] dentry: move to per-sb LRU locks Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 05/32] dcache: remove dentries from LRU before putting on dispose list Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 06/32] mm: new shrinker API Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 07/32] shrinker: convert superblock shrinkers to new API Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 08/32] list: add a new LRU list type Glauber Costa
2013-04-15 5:35 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-15 17:56 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-16 14:43 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 09/32] inode: convert inode lru list to generic lru list code Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 10/32] dcache: convert to use new lru list infrastructure Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 11/32] list_lru: per-node " Glauber Costa
2013-04-15 5:37 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 12/32] shrinker: add node awareness Glauber Costa
2013-04-15 5:38 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 13/32] fs: convert inode and dentry shrinking to be node aware Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 14/32] xfs: convert buftarg LRU to generic code Glauber Costa
2013-04-15 5:38 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-15 10:14 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 15/32] xfs: convert dquot cache lru to list_lru Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 16/32] fs: convert fs shrinkers to new scan/count API Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 17/32] drivers: convert shrinkers to new count/scan API Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 18/32] shrinker: convert remaining shrinkers to " Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 19/32] hugepage: convert huge zero page shrinker to new shrinker API Glauber Costa
2013-04-15 5:38 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-15 8:10 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 20/32] shrinker: Kill old ->shrink API Glauber Costa
2013-04-15 5:38 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 21/32] vmscan: also shrink slab in memcg pressure Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 22/32] memcg,list_lru: duplicate LRUs upon kmemcg creation Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 24/32] list_lru: also include memcg lists in counts and scans Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 25/32] list_lru: per-memcg walks Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 26/32] memcg: per-memcg kmem shrinking Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 27/32] list_lru: reclaim proportionaly between memcgs and nodes Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 28/32] memcg: scan cache objects hierarchically Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 29/32] memcg: move initialization to memcg creation Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 30/32] memcg: shrink dead memcgs upon global memory pressure Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 31/32] super: targeted memcg reclaim Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 14:00 ` [PATCH v3 32/32] memcg: debugging facility to access dangling memcgs Glauber Costa
2013-04-08 20:51 ` [PATCH v3 00/32] memcg-aware slab shrinking with lasers and numbers Andrew Morton
2013-04-09 7:25 ` Glauber Costa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1365429659-22108-24-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox