linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm, slab: move memcg charging to post-alloc hook
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:55:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd05d62d-9f46-46b5-b444-6c4814526459@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZfCkfpogPQVMZnIG@P9FQF9L96D>

On 3/12/24 19:52, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 06:07:08PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> The MEMCG_KMEM integration with slab currently relies on two hooks
>> during allocation. memcg_slab_pre_alloc_hook() determines the objcg and
>> charges it, and memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook() assigns the objcg pointer
>> to the allocated object(s).
>>
>> As Linus pointed out, this is unnecessarily complex. Failing to charge
>> due to memcg limits should be rare, so we can optimistically allocate
>> the object(s) and do the charging together with assigning the objcg
>> pointer in a single post_alloc hook. In the rare case the charging
>> fails, we can free the object(s) back.
>>
>> This simplifies the code (no need to pass around the objcg pointer) and
>> potentially allows to separate charging from allocation in cases where
>> it's common that the allocation would be immediately freed, and the
>> memcg handling overhead could be saved.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=whYOOdM7jWy5jdrAm8LxcgCMFyk2bt8fYYvZzM4U-zAQA@mail.gmail.com/
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> 
> Nice cleanup, Vlastimil!
> Couple of small nits below, but otherwise, please, add my
> 
> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>

Thanks!

>>  	/*
>>  	 * The obtained objcg pointer is safe to use within the current scope,
>>  	 * defined by current task or set_active_memcg() pair.
>>  	 * obj_cgroup_get() is used to get a permanent reference.
>>  	 */
>> -	struct obj_cgroup *objcg = current_obj_cgroup();
>> +	objcg = current_obj_cgroup();
>>  	if (!objcg)
>>  		return true;
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * slab_alloc_node() avoids the NULL check, so we might be called with a
>> +	 * single NULL object. kmem_cache_alloc_bulk() aborts if it can't fill
>> +	 * the whole requested size.
>> +	 * return success as there's nothing to free back
>> +	 */
>> +	if (unlikely(*p == NULL))
>> +		return true;
> 
> Probably better to move this check up? current_obj_cgroup() != NULL check is more
> expensive.

It probably doesn't matter in practice anyway, but my thinking was that
*p == NULL is so rare (the object allocation failed) it shouldn't matter
that we did current_obj_cgroup() uselessly in case it happens.
OTOH current_obj_cgroup() returning NULL is not that rare (?) so it
could be useful to not check *p in those cases?

>> +
>> +	flags &= gfp_allowed_mask;
>> +
>>  	if (lru) {
>>  		int ret;
>>  		struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>> @@ -1926,71 +1939,51 @@ static bool __memcg_slab_pre_alloc_hook(struct kmem_cache *s,
>>  			return false;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	if (obj_cgroup_charge(objcg, flags, objects * obj_full_size(s)))
>> +	if (obj_cgroup_charge(objcg, flags, size * obj_full_size(s)))
>>  		return false;
>>  
>> -	*objcgp = objcg;
>> +	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
>> +		slab = virt_to_slab(p[i]);
> 
> Not specific to this change, but I wonder if it makes sense to introduce virt_to_slab()
> variant without any extra checks for this and similar cases, where we know for sure
> that p resides on a slab page. What do you think?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-13 10:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-01 17:07 [PATCH RFC 0/4] memcg_kmem hooks refactoring and kmem_cache_charge() Vlastimil Babka
2024-03-01 17:07 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm, slab: move memcg charging to post-alloc hook Vlastimil Babka
2024-03-12 18:52   ` Roman Gushchin
2024-03-12 18:59     ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-12 20:35       ` Roman Gushchin
2024-03-13 10:55     ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2024-03-13 17:34       ` Roman Gushchin
2024-03-15  3:23   ` Chengming Zhou
2024-03-01 17:07 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] mm, slab: move slab_memcg hooks to mm/memcontrol.c Vlastimil Babka
2024-03-12 18:56   ` Roman Gushchin
2024-03-12 19:32     ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-12 20:36       ` Roman Gushchin
2024-03-01 17:07 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm, slab: introduce kmem_cache_charge() Vlastimil Babka
2024-03-01 17:07 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] UNFINISHED mm, fs: use kmem_cache_charge() in path_openat() Vlastimil Babka
2024-03-01 17:51   ` Linus Torvalds
2024-03-01 18:53     ` Roman Gushchin
2024-03-12  9:22       ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-03-12 19:05         ` Roman Gushchin
2024-03-04 12:47     ` Christian Brauner
2024-03-24  2:27     ` Al Viro
2024-03-24 17:44       ` Linus Torvalds

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=bd05d62d-9f46-46b5-b444-6c4814526459@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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