From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759006B01E3 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:32:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Greg Thelen Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 1/5] memcg: disable irq at page cgroup lock References: <20100317115855.GS18054@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100318085411.834e1e46.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100318041944.GA18054@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100318133527.420b2f25.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100318162855.GG18054@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100319102332.f1d81c8d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100319024039.GH18054@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100319120049.3dbf8440.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100414182904.2f72a63d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100414140430.GB13535@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:31:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20100414140430.GB13535@redhat.com> (Vivek Goyal's message of "Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:04:30 -0400") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Vivek Goyal Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrea Righi , Daisuke Nishimura , Peter Zijlstra , Trond Myklebust , Suleiman Souhlal , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Vivek Goyal writes: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:29:04PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:55:12 -0700 >> Greg Thelen wrote: >>=20 >> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:10:39 +0530 >> > > Balbir Singh wrote: >> > > >> > >> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2010-03-19 10= :23:32]: >> > >> >> > >> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0530 >> > >> > Balbir Singh wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2010-03-1= 8 13:35:27]: >> > >> > >> > >> > > > Then, no probelm. It's ok to add mem_cgroup_udpate_stat() ind= pendent from >> > >> > > > mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(). The look may be messy but it= 's not your >> > >> > > > fault. But please write "why add new function" to patch descr= iption. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > I'm sorry for wasting your time. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Do we need to go down this route? We could check the stat and d= o the >> > >> > > correct thing. In case of FILE_MAPPED, always grab page_cgroup_= lock >> > >> > > and for others potentially look at trylock. It is OK for differ= ent >> > >> > > stats to be protected via different locks. >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > I _don't_ want to see a mixture of spinlock and trylock in a func= tion. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> A well documented well written function can help. The other thing i= s to >> > >> of-course solve this correctly by introducing different locking aro= und >> > >> the statistics. Are you suggesting the later? >> > >> >> > > >> > > No. As I wrote. >> > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- don't modify codes around FILE_MAPPED i= n this series. >> > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- add a new functions for new statistics >> > > Then, >> > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- think about clean up later, after we co= nfirm all things work as expected. >> >=20 >> > I have ported Andrea Righi's memcg dirty page accounting patches to la= test >> > mmtom-2010-04-05-16-09. In doing so I have to address this locking is= sue. Does >> > the following look good? I will (of course) submit the entire patch f= or review, >> > but I wanted make sure I was aiming in the right direction. >> >=20 >> > void mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(struct page *page, >> > enum mem_cgroup_write_page_stat_item idx, bool charge) >> > { >> > static int seq; >> > struct page_cgroup *pc; >> >=20 >> > if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) >> > return; >> > pc =3D lookup_page_cgroup(page); >> > if (!pc || mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup)) >> > return; >> >=20 >> > /* >> > * This routine does not disable irq when updating stats. So it is >> > * possible that a stat update from within interrupt routine, could >> > * deadlock. Use trylock_page_cgroup() to avoid such deadlock. This >> > * makes the memcg counters fuzzy. More complicated, or lower >> > * performing locking solutions avoid this fuzziness, but are not >> > * currently needed. >> > */ >> > if (irqs_disabled()) { >> > if (! trylock_page_cgroup(pc)) >> > return; >> > } else >> > lock_page_cgroup(pc); >> >=20 >>=20 >> I prefer trylock_page_cgroup() always. >>=20 >> I have another idea fixing this up _later_. (But I want to start from si= mple one.) >>=20 >> My rough idea is following. Similar to your idea which you gave me befo= re. >>=20 >> =3D=3D >> DEFINE_PERCPU(account_move_ongoing); >> DEFINE_MUTEX(move_account_mutex): >>=20 >> void memcg_start_account_move(void) >> { >> mutex_lock(&move_account_mutex); >> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) >> per_cpu(cpu, account_move_ongoing) +=3D 1; >> mutex_unlock(&move_account_mutex); >> /* Wait until there are no lockless update */ >> synchronize_rcu(); >> return; >> } >>=20 >> void memcg_end_account_move(void) >> { >> mutex_lock(&move_account_mutex); >> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) >> per_cpu(cpu, account_move_ongoing) -=3D 1; >> mutex_unlock(&move_account_mutex); >> } >>=20 >> /* return 1 when we took lock, return 0 if lockess OPs is guarantedd to = be safe */ >> int memcg_start_filecache_accounting(struct page_cgroup *pc) >> { >> rcu_read_lock(); >> smp_rmb(); >> if (!this_cpu_read(move_account_ongoing)) >> return 0; /* no move account is ongoing */ >> lock_page_cgroup(pc); >> return 1; >> } >>=20 >> void memcg_end_filecache_accounting(struct page_cgroup *pc, int unlock) >> { >> if (unlock) >> unlock_page_cgroup(pc); >>=20 >> rcu_read_unlock(); >> } >>=20 >> and call memcg_start_account_move()/end_account_move() in the start/end = of >> migrainting chunk of pages. > > Hi Kame-san, > > May be I am missing something but how does it solve the issue of making s= ure > lock_page_cgroup() is not held in interrupt context? IIUC, above code will > make sure that for file cache accouting, lock_page_cgroup() is taken only > if task migration is on. But say task migration is on, and then some IO > completes and we update WRITEBACK stat (i think this is the one which can > be called from interrupt context), then we will still take the > lock_page_cgroup() and again run into the issue of deadlocks? > > Thanks > Vivek I agree. I think the lock/unlock_page_cgrpoup() calls suggested by Kame-san should also include local_irq_save/restore() calls to prevent the interrupt context deadlock Vivek describes. These new local_irq_save/restore() calls would only be used if move_account_ongoing is set. They behave just like the optional calls to lock/unlock_page_cgroup(). -- Greg -- 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: email@kvack.org