From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove unneeded preempt_disable
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:58:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110906095852.GA25053@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1313650253-21794-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:50:53PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> Both mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() were
> unnecessarily disabling preemption when adjusting per-cpu counters:
> preempt_disable()
> __this_cpu_xxx()
> __this_cpu_yyy()
> preempt_enable()
>
> This change does not disable preemption and thus CPU switch is possible
> within these routines. This does not cause a problem because the total
> of all cpu counters is summed when reporting stats. Now both
> mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() look like:
> this_cpu_xxx()
> this_cpu_yyy()
>
> Reported-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
I just noticed that both cases have preemption disabled anyway because
of the page_cgroup bit spinlock.
So removing the preempt_disable() is fine but we can even keep the
non-atomic __this_cpu operations.
Something like this instead?
---
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Subject: mm: memcg: remove needless recursive preemption disabling
Callsites of mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() hold the page_cgroup bit
spinlock, which implies disabled preemption.
The same goes for the explicit preemption disabling to account mapped
file pages in mem_cgroup_move_account().
The explicit disabling of preemption in both cases is redundant.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -618,8 +618,6 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_read_eve
static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
bool file, int nr_pages)
{
- preempt_disable();
-
if (file)
__this_cpu_add(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_CACHE], nr_pages);
else
@@ -634,8 +632,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics
}
__this_cpu_add(mem->stat->events[MEM_CGROUP_EVENTS_COUNT], nr_pages);
-
- preempt_enable();
}
unsigned long
@@ -2582,10 +2578,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struc
if (PageCgroupFileMapped(pc)) {
/* Update mapped_file data for mem_cgroup */
- preempt_disable();
__this_cpu_dec(from->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
__this_cpu_inc(to->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
- preempt_enable();
}
mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(from, PageCgroupCache(pc), -nr_pages);
if (uncharge)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove unneeded preempt_disable
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:58:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110906095852.GA25053@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1313650253-21794-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:50:53PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> Both mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() were
> unnecessarily disabling preemption when adjusting per-cpu counters:
> preempt_disable()
> __this_cpu_xxx()
> __this_cpu_yyy()
> preempt_enable()
>
> This change does not disable preemption and thus CPU switch is possible
> within these routines. This does not cause a problem because the total
> of all cpu counters is summed when reporting stats. Now both
> mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() look like:
> this_cpu_xxx()
> this_cpu_yyy()
>
> Reported-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
I just noticed that both cases have preemption disabled anyway because
of the page_cgroup bit spinlock.
So removing the preempt_disable() is fine but we can even keep the
non-atomic __this_cpu operations.
Something like this instead?
---
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Subject: mm: memcg: remove needless recursive preemption disabling
Callsites of mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() hold the page_cgroup bit
spinlock, which implies disabled preemption.
The same goes for the explicit preemption disabling to account mapped
file pages in mem_cgroup_move_account().
The explicit disabling of preemption in both cases is redundant.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -618,8 +618,6 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_read_eve
static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
bool file, int nr_pages)
{
- preempt_disable();
-
if (file)
__this_cpu_add(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_CACHE], nr_pages);
else
@@ -634,8 +632,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics
}
__this_cpu_add(mem->stat->events[MEM_CGROUP_EVENTS_COUNT], nr_pages);
-
- preempt_enable();
}
unsigned long
@@ -2582,10 +2578,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struc
if (PageCgroupFileMapped(pc)) {
/* Update mapped_file data for mem_cgroup */
- preempt_disable();
__this_cpu_dec(from->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
__this_cpu_inc(to->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
- preempt_enable();
}
mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(from, PageCgroupCache(pc), -nr_pages);
if (uncharge)
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-06 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-18 6:50 [PATCH] memcg: remove unneeded preempt_disable Greg Thelen
2011-08-18 6:50 ` Greg Thelen
2011-08-18 6:52 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-08-18 6:52 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-08-18 9:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-18 9:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-18 14:26 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-08-18 14:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-18 14:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-08-18 18:27 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-08-18 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2011-08-18 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2011-08-19 0:00 ` Greg Thelen
2011-08-19 0:00 ` Greg Thelen
2011-08-25 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 15:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 15:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 16:20 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 16:20 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 16:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 16:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 16:34 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 16:34 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 17:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 17:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 18:34 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 18:34 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 18:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 18:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 18:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 18:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 18:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 18:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 19:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 19:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 19:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 19:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-08-25 22:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 22:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 19:29 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 19:29 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-25 23:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 23:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 18:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-25 18:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-06 9:58 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2011-09-06 9:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-06 10:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-09-06 10:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-09-06 10:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-06 10:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-06 10:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-09-06 10:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-09-06 18:04 ` Greg Thelen
2011-09-06 18:04 ` Greg Thelen
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=20110906095852.GA25053@redhat.com \
--to=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.