From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
"balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7][memcg] memcg lockless update of file mapped
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:09:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xr93pqy8krq6.fsf@ninji.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100727165938.633a1ede.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> (KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki's message of "Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:59:38 +0900")
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>
> At accounting file events per memory cgroup, we need to find memory cgroup
> via page_cgroup->mem_cgroup. Now, we use lock_page_cgroup().
>
> But, considering the context which page-cgroup for files are accessed,
> we can use alternative light-weight mutual execusion in the most case.
> At handling file-caches, the only race we have to take care of is "moving"
> account, IOW, overwriting page_cgroup->mem_cgroup. Because file status
> update is done while the page-cache is in stable state, we don't have to
> take care of race with charge/uncharge.
>
> Unlike charge/uncharge, "move" happens not so frequently. It happens only when
> rmdir() and task-moving (with a special settings.)
> This patch adds a race-checker for file-cache-status accounting v.s. account
> moving. The new per-cpu-per-memcg counter MEM_CGROUP_ON_MOVE is added.
> The routine for account move
> 1. Increment it before start moving
> 2. Call synchronize_rcu()
> 3. Decrement it after the end of moving.
> By this, file-status-counting routine can check it needs to call
> lock_page_cgroup(). In most case, I doesn't need to call it.
>
> Note: update_file_mapped is safe against charge/uncharge even if it's
> not under address_space->tree_lock or lock_page(). Because it's under
> page_table_lock(), anyone can't unmap it...then, anyone can't uncharge().
>
>
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: mmotm-0719/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-0719.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ mmotm-0719/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
> MEM_CGROUP_STAT_PGPGOUT_COUNT, /* # of pages paged out */
> MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SWAPOUT, /* # of pages, swapped out */
> MEM_CGROUP_EVENTS, /* incremented at every pagein/pageout */
> + MEM_CGROUP_ON_MOVE, /* A check for locking move account/status */
>
> MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
> };
> @@ -1071,7 +1072,48 @@ static unsigned int get_swappiness(struc
> return swappiness;
> }
>
> -/* A routine for testing mem is not under move_account */
> +static void mem_cgroup_start_move(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> + /* for fast checking in mem_cgroup_update_file_stat() etc..*/
> + spin_lock(&mc.lock);
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> + per_cpu(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_ON_MOVE], cpu) += 1;
> + spin_unlock(&mc.lock);
> +
> + synchronize_rcu();
> +}
> +
> +static void mem_cgroup_end_move(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!mem)
> + return;
> + /* for fast checking in mem_cgroup_update_file_stat() etc..*/
> + spin_lock(&mc.lock);
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> + per_cpu(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_ON_MOVE], cpu) -= 1;
> + spin_unlock(&mc.lock);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * mem_cgroup_is_moved -- checking a cgroup is mc.from target or not.
> + * used for avoiding race.
> + * mem_cgroup_under_move -- checking a cgroup is mc.from or mc.to or
> + * under hierarchy of them. used for waiting at
> + * memory pressure.
> + * Result of is_moved can be trusted until the end of rcu_read_unlock().
> + * The caller must do
> + * rcu_read_lock();
> + * result = mem_cgroup_is_moved();
> + * .....make use of result here....
> + * rcu_read_unlock();
> + */
> +static bool mem_cgroup_is_moved(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> +{
Could we add an assertion to confirm locking contract is upheld:
VM_BUG_ON(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> + return this_cpu_read(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_ON_MOVE]) > 0;
> +}
>
> static bool mem_cgroup_under_move(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> {
> @@ -1470,13 +1512,21 @@ void mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(struc
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *mem;
> struct page_cgroup *pc;
> + bool need_lock = false;
>
> pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> if (unlikely(!pc))
> return;
> -
> - lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> mem = id_to_mem(pc->mem_cgroup);
> + if (!mem)
> + goto done;
> + need_lock = mem_cgroup_is_moved(mem);
> + if (need_lock) {
> + /* need to serialize with move_account */
> + lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> + mem = id_to_mem(pc->mem_cgroup);
> + }
> if (!mem || !PageCgroupUsed(pc))
> goto done;
Could we add a preemption() check here to ensure that the
__this_cpu_xxx() is safe to use?
/*
* Preemption is already disabled. We can use __this_cpu_xxx
*/
+ VM_BUG_ON(preemptible());
> @@ -1492,7 +1542,9 @@ void mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(struc
> }
>
> done:
> - unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> + if (need_lock)
> + unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -3024,6 +3076,7 @@ move_account:
> lru_add_drain_all();
> drain_all_stock_sync();
> ret = 0;
> + mem_cgroup_start_move(mem);
> for_each_node_state(node, N_HIGH_MEMORY) {
> for (zid = 0; !ret && zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
> enum lru_list l;
> @@ -3037,6 +3090,7 @@ move_account:
> if (ret)
> break;
> }
> + mem_cgroup_end_move(mem);
> memcg_oom_recover(mem);
> /* it seems parent cgroup doesn't have enough mem */
> if (ret == -ENOMEM)
> @@ -4503,6 +4557,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_clear_mc(void)
> mc.to = NULL;
> mc.moving_task = NULL;
> spin_unlock(&mc.lock);
> + mem_cgroup_end_move(from);
> memcg_oom_recover(from);
> memcg_oom_recover(to);
> wake_up_all(&mc.waitq);
> @@ -4533,6 +4588,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_can_attach(struct
> VM_BUG_ON(mc.moved_charge);
> VM_BUG_ON(mc.moved_swap);
> VM_BUG_ON(mc.moving_task);
> + mem_cgroup_start_move(from);
> spin_lock(&mc.lock);
> mc.from = from;
> mc.to = mem;
--
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:[~2010-07-28 7:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-27 7:51 [RFC][PATCH 0/7][memcg] towards I/O aware memory cgroup KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-27 7:53 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7][memcg] virtually indexed array library KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-27 18:29 ` Jonathan Corbet
2010-07-28 0:08 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 19:45 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-29 0:32 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-29 4:27 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-08-02 18:00 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-02 23:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-27 7:54 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7][memcg] cgroup arbitarary ID allocation KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 2:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-28 2:35 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 3:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-08-02 18:04 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-02 23:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-27 7:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7][memcg] memcg on virt array for quick access via ID KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-27 7:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7][memcg] memcg use ID in page_cgroup KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 2:39 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-28 2:44 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 3:13 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-28 3:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 3:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 14:17 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-28 15:43 ` Munehiro Ikeda
2010-07-27 7:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7][memcg] memcg lockless update of file mapped KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 7:09 ` Greg Thelen [this message]
2010-07-28 7:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-27 8:00 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7][memcg] generic file status update KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 7:12 ` Greg Thelen
2010-07-28 7:14 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-27 8:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7][memcg] use spin lock instead of bit_spin_lock in page_cgroup KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 6:16 ` Greg Thelen
2010-07-28 6:20 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-08-02 18:09 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-02 23:46 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 0:13 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/7][memcg] towards I/O aware memory cgroup KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-07-28 14:42 ` Balbir Singh
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=xr93pqy8krq6.fsf@ninji.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.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