Re: [PATCH 07/10] memcg: Stop res_counter underflows.

[Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>]

On 02/27/2012 07:58 PM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> From: Hugh Dickins<hughd@google.com>
>
> If __mem_cgroup_try_charge() goes the "bypass" route in charging slab
> (typically when the task has been OOM-killed), that later results in
> res_counter_uncharge_locked() underflows - a stream of warnings from
> kernel/res_counter.c:96!
>
> Solve this by accounting kmem_bypass when we shift that charge to root,
> and whenever a memcg has any kmem_bypass outstanding, deduct from that
> when unaccounting kmem, before deducting from kmem_bytes: so that its
> kmem_bytes soon returns to being a fair account.

Ok, I was almost writing a pile of crap here =)
Your changelog gave me the impression that you were disable the warning,
until I was down to the middle of the code. Think you can reword it?

> The amount of memory bypassed is shown in memory.stat as
> kernel_bypassed_memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal<suleiman@google.com>
> ---
>   mm/memcontrol.c |   43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index d1c0cd7..6a475ed 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -302,6 +302,9 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>   	/* Slab accounting */
>   	struct kmem_cache *slabs[MAX_KMEM_CACHE_TYPES];
>   #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
> +	atomic64_t kmem_bypassed;
> +#endif
>   	int independent_kmem_limit;
>   };
>
> @@ -4037,6 +4040,7 @@ enum {
>   	MCS_INACTIVE_FILE,
>   	MCS_ACTIVE_FILE,
>   	MCS_UNEVICTABLE,
> +	MCS_KMEM_BYPASSED,
>   	NR_MCS_STAT,
>   };
>
> @@ -4060,7 +4064,8 @@ struct {
>   	{"active_anon", "total_active_anon"},
>   	{"inactive_file", "total_inactive_file"},
>   	{"active_file", "total_active_file"},
> -	{"unevictable", "total_unevictable"}
> +	{"unevictable", "total_unevictable"},
> +	{"kernel_bypassed_memory", "total_kernel_bypassed_memory"}
>   };
>
>
> @@ -4100,6 +4105,10 @@ mem_cgroup_get_local_stat(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct mcs_total_stat *s)
>   	s->stat[MCS_ACTIVE_FILE] += val * PAGE_SIZE;
>   	val = mem_cgroup_nr_lru_pages(memcg, BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
>   	s->stat[MCS_UNEVICTABLE] += val * PAGE_SIZE;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
> +	s->stat[MCS_KMEM_BYPASSED] += atomic64_read(&memcg->kmem_bypassed);
> +#endif
>   }
>
>   static void
> @@ -5616,14 +5625,24 @@ memcg_charge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp, long long delta)
>   	ret = 0;
>
>   	if (memcg&&  !memcg->independent_kmem_limit) {
> +		/*
> +		 * __mem_cgroup_try_charge may decide to bypass the charge and
> +		 * set _memcg to NULL, in which case we need to account to the
> +		 * root.
> +		 */
I don't fully understand this.
To me, the whole purpose of having a cache tied to a memcg, is that we 
know all allocations from that particular cache should be billed to a 
specific memcg. So after a cache is created, and has an assigned memcg,
what's the point in bypassing it to root?

It smells like you're just using this to circumvent something...

>   		_memcg = memcg;
>   		if (__mem_cgroup_try_charge(NULL, gfp, delta / PAGE_SIZE,
>   		&_memcg, may_oom) != 0)
>   			return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		if (!_memcg&&  memcg != root_mem_cgroup) {
> +			atomic64_add(delta,&memcg->kmem_bypassed);
> +			memcg = NULL;
> +		}
>   	}
>
> -	if (_memcg)
> -		ret = res_counter_charge(&_memcg->kmem_bytes, delta,&fail_res);
> +	if (memcg)
> +		ret = res_counter_charge(&memcg->kmem_bytes, delta,&fail_res);
>
>   	return ret;
>   }
> @@ -5631,6 +5650,22 @@ memcg_charge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp, long long delta)
>   void
>   memcg_uncharge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, long long delta)
>   {
> +	long long bypassed;
> +
> +	if (memcg) {
> +		bypassed = atomic64_read(&memcg->kmem_bypassed);
> +		if (bypassed>  0) {
> +			if (bypassed>  delta)
> +				bypassed = delta;
> +			do {
> +				memcg_uncharge_kmem(NULL, bypassed);
> +				delta -= bypassed;
> +				bypassed = atomic64_sub_return(bypassed,
> +				&memcg->kmem_bypassed);
> +			} while (bypassed<  0);	/* Might have raced */
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>   	if (memcg)
>   		res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->kmem_bytes, delta);
>
> @@ -5956,6 +5991,7 @@ memcg_kmem_init(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct mem_cgroup *parent)
>
>   	memcg_slab_init(memcg);
>
> +	atomic64_set(&memcg->kmem_bypassed, 0);
>   	memcg->independent_kmem_limit = 0;
>   }
>
> @@ -5967,6 +6003,7 @@ memcg_kmem_move(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>
>   	memcg_slab_move(memcg);
>
> +	atomic64_set(&memcg->kmem_bypassed, 0);
>   	spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg->kmem_bytes.lock, flags);
>   	kmem_bytes = memcg->kmem_bytes.usage;
>   	res_counter_uncharge_locked(&memcg->kmem_bytes, kmem_bytes);

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>