Re: [RFC][PATCH][1/4] RSS controller setup

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:20:26 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> This patch sets up the basic controller infrastructure on top of the
> containers infrastructure. Two files are provided for monitoring
> and control  memctlr_usage and memctlr_limit.

The patches use the identifier "memctlr" a lot.  It is hard to remember,
and unpronounceable.  Something like memcontrol or mem_controller or
memory_controller would be more typical.

> ...
>
> +	BUG_ON(!mem);
> +	if ((buffer = kmalloc(nbytes + 1, GFP_KERNEL)) == 0)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

Please prefer to do

	buffer = kmalloc(nbytes + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
	if (buffer == NULL)
		reutrn -ENOMEM;

ie: avoid the assign-and-test-in-the-same-statement thing.  This affects
the whole patchset.

Also, please don't compare pointers to literal zero like that.  It makes me
get buried it patches to convert it to "NULL".  I think this is a sparse
thing.

> +	buffer[nbytes] = 0;
> +	if (copy_from_user(buffer, userbuf, nbytes)) {
> +		ret = -EFAULT;
> +		goto out_err;
> +	}
> +
> +	container_manage_lock();
> +	if (container_is_removed(cont)) {
> +		ret = -ENODEV;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
> +	limit = simple_strtoul(buffer, NULL, 10);
> +	/*
> +	 * 0 is a valid limit (unlimited resource usage)
> +	 */
> +	if (!limit && strcmp(buffer, "0"))
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&mem->lock);
> +	mem->counter.limit = limit;
> +	spin_unlock(&mem->lock);

The patches do this a lot: a single atomic assignment with a
pointless-looking lock/unlock around it.  It's often the case that this
idiom indicates a bug, or needless locking.  I think the only case where it
makes sense is when there's some other code somewhere which is doing

	spin_lock(&mem->lock);
	...
	use1(mem->counter.limit);
	...
	use2(mem->counter.limit);
	...
	spin_unlock(&mem->lock);

where use1() and use2() expect the two reads of mem->counter.limit to
return the same value.

Is that the case in these patches?  If not, we might have a problem in
there.

> +
> +static ssize_t memctlr_read(struct container *cont, struct cftype *cft,
> +				struct file *file, char __user *userbuf,
> +				size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> +	unsigned long usage, limit;
> +	char usagebuf[64];		/* Move away from stack later */
> +	char *s = usagebuf;
> +	struct memctlr *mem = memctlr_from_cont(cont);
> +
> +	spin_lock(&mem->lock);
> +	usage = mem->counter.usage;
> +	limit = mem->counter.limit;
> +	spin_unlock(&mem->lock);
> +
> +	s += sprintf(s, "usage %lu, limit %ld\n", usage, limit);
> +	return simple_read_from_buffer(userbuf, nbytes, ppos, usagebuf,
> +					s - usagebuf);
> +}

This output is hard to parse and to extend.  I'd suggest either two
separate files, or multi-line output:

usage: %lu kB
limit: %lu kB

and what are the units of these numbers?  Page counts?  If so, please don't
do that: it requires appplications and humans to know the current kernel's
page size.

> +static struct cftype memctlr_usage = {
> +	.name = "memctlr_usage",
> +	.read = memctlr_read,
> +};
> +
> +static struct cftype memctlr_limit = {
> +	.name = "memctlr_limit",
> +	.write = memctlr_write,
> +};
> +
> +static int memctlr_populate(struct container_subsys *ss,
> +				struct container *cont)
> +{
> +	int rc;
> +	if ((rc = container_add_file(cont, &memctlr_usage)) < 0)
> +		return rc;
> +	if ((rc = container_add_file(cont, &memctlr_limit)) < 0)

Clean up the first file here?

> +		return rc;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct container_subsys memctlr_subsys = {
> +	.name = "memctlr",
> +	.create = memctlr_create,
> +	.destroy = memctlr_destroy,
> +	.populate = memctlr_populate,
> +};
> +
> +int __init memctlr_init(void)
> +{
> +	int id;
> +
> +	id = container_register_subsys(&memctlr_subsys);
> +	printk("Initializing memctlr version %s, id %d\n", version, id);
> +	return id < 0 ? id : 0;
> +}
> +
> +module_init(memctlr_init);