Re: [PATCH rfc 2/5] mm: kmem: add direct objcg pointer to task_struct

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 03:03:48PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 04:12:54PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 08:08:29AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > @@ -3001,6 +3001,47 @@ static struct obj_cgroup *__get_obj_cgroup_from_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > >  	return objcg;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(current_objcg_lock);
> > > +
> > > +static struct obj_cgroup *current_objcg_update(struct obj_cgroup *old)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > > +	struct obj_cgroup *objcg;
> > > +	unsigned long flags;
> > > +
> > > +	old = current_objcg_clear_update_flag(old);
> > > +	if (old)
> > > +		obj_cgroup_put(old);
> > > +
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&current_objcg_lock, flags);
> > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > > +	memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
> > > +	for (; memcg != root_mem_cgroup; memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) {
> > > +		objcg = rcu_dereference(memcg->objcg);
> > > +		if (objcg && obj_cgroup_tryget(objcg))
> > > +			break;
> > > +		objcg = NULL;
> > > +	}
> > > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > 
> > Can this tryget() actually fail when this is called on the current
> > task during fork() and attach()? A cgroup cannot be offlined while
> > there is a task in it.
> 
> Highly theoretically it can if it races against a migration of the current
> task to another memcg and the previous memcg is getting offlined.

Ah right, if this runs between css_set_move_task() and ->attach(). The
cache would be briefly updated to a parent in the old hierarchy, but
then quickly reset from the ->attach().

Can you please add a comment along these lines?

> I actually might make sense to apply the same approach for memcgs as well
> (saving a lazily-updating memcg pointer on task_struct). Then it will be
> possible to ditch this "for" loop. But I need some time to master the code
> and run benchmarks. Idk if it will make enough difference to justify the change.

Yeah the memcg pointer is slightly less attractive from an
optimization POV because it already is a pretty direct pointer from
task through the cset array.

If you still want to look into it from a simplification POV that
sounds reasonable, but IMO it would be fine with a comment.

> > > @@ -6345,6 +6393,22 @@ static void mem_cgroup_move_task(void)
> > >  		mem_cgroup_clear_mc();
> > >  	}
> > >  }
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> > > +static void mem_cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > +	task->objcg = (struct obj_cgroup *)0x1;
> > 
> > dup_task_struct() will copy this pointer from the old task. Would it
> > be possible to bump the refcount here instead? That would save quite a
> > bit of work during fork().
> 
> Yeah, it should be possible. It won't save a lot, but I agree it makes
> sense. I'll take a look and will prepare a separate patch for this.

I guess the hairiest part would be synchronizing against a migration
because all these cgroup core callbacks are unlocked.

Would it make sense to add ->fork_locked() and ->attach_locked()
callbacks that are dispatched under the css_set_lock? Then this could
be a simple if (p && !(p & 0x1)) obj_cgroup_get(), which would
certainly be nice to workloads where fork() is hot, with little
downside otherwise.