From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B579C433B4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23766115B for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:19:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C23766115B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CE5936B0036; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C95D96B006C; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:19:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B0E7A6B0070; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:19:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0080.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.80]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CEF6B0036 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FB55DE0 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:19:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78035715912.19.D1C09D7 Received: from mail-qk1-f181.google.com (mail-qk1-f181.google.com [209.85.222.181]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D174CC0007D4 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f181.google.com with SMTP id 18so9751141qkl.3 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:19:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=hD3bQIY2ucYvZVOUSWo6vopC1VOcxVsnFm0zvmFOg+E=; b=ncE49eeSu4d9JPAV9lE+/q2xl8LS+vgcjxBrrC1YbpgbOEdDASvGHJSbLbPwFvkpVd G3FDAN50vmifSNPyI/+iFoCnMeJuHzWS9JePPFYvKAncH1z/O1/khvTw2ESGPrEVx/EX Ml8HScotQVh5QAaoX1NaKvt/TdkCYlK/uKcva06UWtHgDWwstlIDYXclXcrPiUbL9QJ2 fu7+7zlr+hxzXe6hq6LC5vTCg9H5b/3dHncRSN9i7CBH2gZXaewKzpSS0g3SYZCvvlBh uDp0AeuH+jAUDLoCanhLTeoi4x8WzLnDdkSU3xfu41oXZPBPNF+wWndl1QWgWuiaCEeO 9jAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=hD3bQIY2ucYvZVOUSWo6vopC1VOcxVsnFm0zvmFOg+E=; b=o4oX6RFb/cO4SNtqa3Bf3Q78xu7A0cg9ieYWnfCK4pSeevJonVumxeklC0WTgLJ9+f NTK15isVFE7EdbCi3Z1rYjuiC5QZRApa3GAZZla+JEI8ppV3nsXtxCjGjMdq4ABFot2R trSGDYDNtoKJe7GZNCnlu68b5yo9rF75K4OEH2m4yvAtg9i5l1GwJ9x2iMCAjdm4O3a6 p6o9aqDcTUSH8Ela2N7TkwwpHsaRKCib393TMv2H9g6Q/ImI2td8bv4HMQHobv5nWOWZ rYN2tKq971AtVdi3XNBrINgTTVqf1qsODgxvr4MXB4M6L+Vp5vmmj5YzQWDPjCgIix3I j0qg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533WoFrMtEUhyyMifNfiQG8iXfujQskqh/r0dKbFlevcNW6gmIT5 P7EOOUCcfft/FZuW4vo4p8G5ZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwiAzFTxTZfDxhRJ5CRFM83AZJ2htjjGF5NKjElSvaAczmJIdn1NVBKiJ0Z9fZC15Vk+NMDpw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:9604:: with SMTP id y4mr5219490qkd.345.1618517954908; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (70.44.39.90.res-cmts.bus.ptd.net. [70.44.39.90]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l16sm2814015qke.117.2021.04.15.13.19.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:19:13 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Waiman Long Cc: Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Vlastimil Babka , Roman Gushchin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Alex Shi , Chris Down , Yafang Shao , Wei Yang , Masayoshi Mizuma , Xing Zhengjun Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm/memcg: Introduce obj_cgroup_uncharge_mod_state() Message-ID: References: <20210414012027.5352-1-longman@redhat.com> <20210414012027.5352-3-longman@redhat.com> <1c85e8f6-e8b9-33e1-e29b-81fbadff959f@redhat.com> <8a104fd5-64c7-3f41-981c-9cfa977c78a6@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D174CC0007D4 X-Stat-Signature: 6ngmy5afath89qqrctoibwtfpunj5bbt X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 Received-SPF: none (cmpxchg.org>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf06; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mail-qk1-f181.google.com; client-ip=209.85.222.181 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1618517957-188827 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:44:56PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 4/15/21 3:40 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:47:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > On 4/15/21 2:10 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:35:45PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > > On 4/15/21 12:30 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:20:24PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > > > > In memcg_slab_free_hook()/pcpu_memcg_free_hook(), obj_cgroup_uncharge() > > > > > > > is followed by mod_objcg_state()/mod_memcg_state(). Each of these > > > > > > > function call goes through a separate irq_save/irq_restore cycle. That > > > > > > > is inefficient. Introduce a new function obj_cgroup_uncharge_mod_state() > > > > > > > that combines them with a single irq_save/irq_restore cycle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -3292,6 +3296,25 @@ void obj_cgroup_uncharge(struct obj_cgroup *objcg, size_t size) > > > > > > > refill_obj_stock(objcg, size); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > +void obj_cgroup_uncharge_mod_state(struct obj_cgroup *objcg, size_t size, > > > > > > > + struct pglist_data *pgdat, int idx) > > > > > > The optimization makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > But please don't combine independent operations like this into a > > > > > > single function. It makes for an unclear parameter list, it's a pain > > > > > > in the behind to change the constituent operations later on, and it > > > > > > has a habit of attracting more random bools over time. E.g. what if > > > > > > the caller already has irqs disabled? What if it KNOWS that irqs are > > > > > > enabled and it could use local_irq_disable() instead of save? > > > > > > > > > > > > Just provide an __obj_cgroup_uncharge() that assumes irqs are > > > > > > disabled, combine with the existing __mod_memcg_lruvec_state(), and > > > > > > bubble the irq handling up to those callsites which know better. > > > > > > > > > > > That will also work. However, the reason I did that was because of patch 5 > > > > > in the series. I could put the get_obj_stock() and put_obj_stock() code in > > > > > slab.h and allowed them to be used directly in various places, but hiding in > > > > > one function is easier. > > > > Yeah it's more obvious after getting to patch 5. > > > > > > > > But with the irq disabling gone entirely, is there still an incentive > > > > to combine the atomic section at all? Disabling preemption is pretty > > > > cheap, so it wouldn't matter to just do it twice. > > > > > > > > I.e. couldn't the final sequence in slab code simply be > > > > > > > > objcg_uncharge() > > > > mod_objcg_state() > > > > > > > > again and each function disables preemption (and in the rare case > > > > irqs) as it sees fit? > > > > > > > > You lose the irqsoff batching in the cold path, but as you say, hit > > > > rates are pretty good, and it doesn't seem worth complicating the code > > > > for the cold path. > > > > > > > That does make sense, though a little bit of performance may be lost. I will > > > try that out to see how it work out performance wise. > > Thanks. > > > > Even if we still end up doing it, it's great to have that cost > > isolated, so we know how much extra code complexity corresponds to how > > much performance gain. It seems the task/irq split could otherwise be > > a pretty localized change with no API implications. > > > I still want to move mod_objcg_state() function to memcontrol.c though as I > don't want to put any obj_stock stuff in mm/slab.h. No objection from me! That's actually a nice cleanup, IMO. Not sure why it was separated from the rest of the objcg interface implementation to begin with.