From: Daisuke Nishimura <d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] memcg: make resize limit hold mutex
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:04:00 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081115200400.1399c7e0.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41265.10.75.179.62.1226745093.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com>
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:31:33 +0900 (JST)
"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Daisuke Nishimura said:
> >
> > This patch define a new mutex and make both mem_cgroup_resize_limit and
> > mem_cgroup_memsw_resize_limit hold it to remove spin_lock_irqsave.
> >
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> > ---
> <snip>
> > - while (res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->res, val)) {
> > + while (retry_count) {
> > if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > ret = -EINTR;
> > break;
> > }
> > - if (!retry_count) {
> > - ret = -EBUSY;
> > - break;
> > + /*
> > + * Rather than hide all in some function, I do this in
> > + * open coded manner. You see what this really does.
> > + * We have to guarantee mem->res.limit < mem->memsw.limit.
> > + */
> > + if (do_swap_account) {
> > + mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
> > + memswlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw,
> > + RES_LIMIT);
> > + if (memswlimit < val) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->res, val);
> > + mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> > }
>
> Maybe !do_swap_account case is not handled.
Oops, you are right.
> I think in !do_swap_account case, memsw.limit is inifinite.
> So, just removing this "if" is ok.
>
> No objection to your direction, could you fix ?
>
Sure.
This is the fixed version.
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
=====
From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit() try to hold memsw.lock while holding
res.lock, so below message is showed when trying to write
memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes file.
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.28-rc4-mm1-mmotm-2008-11-14-20-50-ef4e17ef #1
bash/4406 is trying to acquire lock:
(&counter->lock){....}, at: [<c0498408>] mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit+0x8d/0x113
but task is already holding lock:
(&counter->lock){....}, at: [<c04983d6>] mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit+0x5b/0x113
other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by bash/4406:
#0: (&counter->lock){....}, at: [<c04983d6>] mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit+0x5b/0x113
stack backtrace:
Pid: 4406, comm: bash Not tainted 2.6.28-rc4-mm1-mmotm-2008-11-14-20-50-ef4e17ef #1
Call Trace:
[<c066e60f>] ? printk+0xf/0x18
[<c044d0c0>] __lock_acquire+0xc67/0x1353
[<c044d793>] ? __lock_acquire+0x133a/0x1353
[<c044d81c>] lock_acquire+0x70/0x97
[<c0498408>] ? mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit+0x8d/0x113
[<c0671519>] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x6d
[<c0498408>] ? mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit+0x8d/0x113
[<c0498408>] mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit+0x8d/0x113
[<c0518a6c>] ? memparse+0x14/0x66
[<c0498594>] mem_cgroup_write+0x4a/0x50
[<c045e063>] cgroup_file_write+0x181/0x1c6
[<c0449e43>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0x1a/0x168
[<c04ec725>] ? security_file_permission+0xf/0x11
[<c049b5f0>] ? rw_verify_area+0x76/0x97
[<c045dee2>] ? cgroup_file_write+0x0/0x1c6
[<c049bce6>] vfs_write+0x8a/0x12e
[<c049be23>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
[<c0403867>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x3f
This patch define a new mutex and make both mem_cgroup_resize_limit and
mem_cgroup_memsw_resize_limit hold it to remove spin_lock_irqsave.
Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
---
This patch can be applied after memcg-add-mem_cgroup_disabled-fix.patch.
mm/memcontrol.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 09ce42a..691e052 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
#include <linux/mm_inline.h>
#include <linux/page_cgroup.h>
+#include <linux/mutex.h>
#include "internal.h"
#include <asm/uaccess.h>
@@ -1147,27 +1148,38 @@ int mem_cgroup_shrink_usage(struct mm_struct *mm, gfp_t gfp_mask)
return 0;
}
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(set_limit_mutex);
int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned long long val)
{
int retry_count = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
int progress;
+ u64 memswlimit;
int ret = 0;
- if (do_swap_account) {
- if (val > memcg->memsw.limit)
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
- while (res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->res, val)) {
+ while (retry_count) {
if (signal_pending(current)) {
ret = -EINTR;
break;
}
- if (!retry_count) {
- ret = -EBUSY;
+ /*
+ * Rather than hide all in some function, I do this in
+ * open coded manner. You see what this really does.
+ * We have to guarantee mem->res.limit < mem->memsw.limit.
+ */
+ mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
+ memswlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT);
+ if (memswlimit < val) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
break;
}
+ ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->res, val);
+ mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
+
+ if (!ret)
+ break;
+
progress = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, false);
if (!progress)
@@ -1180,7 +1192,6 @@ int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
unsigned long long val)
{
int retry_count = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
- unsigned long flags;
u64 memlimit, oldusage, curusage;
int ret;
@@ -1197,19 +1208,20 @@ int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
* open coded manner. You see what this really does.
* We have to guarantee mem->res.limit < mem->memsw.limit.
*/
- spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg->res.lock, flags);
- memlimit = memcg->res.limit;
+ mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
+ memlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT);
if (memlimit > val) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg->res.lock, flags);
ret = -EINVAL;
+ mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
break;
}
ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->memsw, val);
- oldusage = memcg->memsw.usage;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg->res.lock, flags);
+ mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
if (!ret)
break;
+
+ oldusage = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_USAGE);
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, true);
curusage = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_USAGE);
if (curusage >= oldusage)
--
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:[~2008-11-15 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-15 9:37 Daisuke Nishimura, Daisuke Nishimura
2008-11-15 10:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-11-15 11:04 ` Daisuke Nishimura [this message]
2008-11-15 12:08 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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=20081115200400.1399c7e0.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp \
--to=d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
/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