Re: [PATCH next 00/12] mm: replace struct mem_cgroup_zone with struct lruvec

[Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>]

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:53:44 +0400
>>> Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@openvz.org>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patchset depends on Johannes Weiner's patch
>>>> "mm: memcg: count pte references from every member of the reclaimed
>>>> hierarchy".
>>>>
>>>> bloat-o-meter delta for patches 2..12
>>>>
>>>> add/remove: 6/6 grow/shrink: 6/14 up/down: 4414/-4625 (-211)
>>>
>>> That's the sole effect and intent of the patchset?  To save 211 bytes?
>
> I am surprised it's not more: it feels like more.
>
>>
>> This is almost last bunch of cleanups for lru_lock splitting,
>> code reducing is only nice side-effect.
>> Also this patchset removes many redundant lruvec relookups.
>>
>> Now mostly all page-to-lruvec translations are located at the same level
>> as zone->lru_lock locking. So lru-lock splitting patchset can something like
>> this:
>>
>> -zone = page_zone(page)
>> -spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock)
>> -lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page)
>> +lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page)
>>
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>    include/linux/memcontrol.h |   16 +--
>>>>    include/linux/mmzone.h     |   14 ++
>>>>    mm/memcontrol.c            |   33 +++--
>>>>    mm/mmzone.c                |   14 ++
>>>>    mm/page_alloc.c            |    8 -
>>>>    mm/vmscan.c                |  277
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>>>>    6 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 185 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> If so, I'm not sure that it is worth the risk and effort?
>
> I'm pretty sure that it is worth the effort, and see very little risk.
>
> It's close to my "[PATCH 3/10] mm/memcg: add zone pointer into lruvec"
> posted 20 Feb (after Konstantin posted his set a few days earlier),
> which Kamezawa-san Acked with "I like this cleanup".  But this goes
> a little further (e.g. 01/12 saving an arg by moving priority into sc,
> that's nice; and v2 05/12 removing update_isolated_counts(), great).
>
> Konstantin and I came independently to this simplification, or
> generalization, from zone to lruvec: we're confident that it is the
> right direction, that it's a good basis for further work.  Certainly
> neither of us have yet posted numbers to justify per-memcg per-zone
> locking (and I expect split zone locking to need more justification
> than it's had); but we both think these patches are a worthwhile
> cleanup on their own.
>
> I don't think it was particularly useful to split this into all of
> 12 pieces!  But never mind, that's a trivial detail, not worth undoing.
> There's a few by-the-by bits and pieces I liked in my version that are
> not here, but nothing important: if I care enough, I can always send a
> little cleanup afterwards.
>
> The only change I'd ask for is in the commit comment on 02/12: it
> puzzlingly says "page_zone()" where it means to say "lruvec_zone()".
> I think if I'd been doing 04/12, I'd have resented passing "zone" to
> shrink_page_list(), would have deleted its VM_BUG_ON, and used a
> page_zone() for ZONE_CONGESTED: but that's just me being mean.

We already know which zone we scan, why you prefer to re-lookup it via
page's reference? And which page you will choose for that? There are many of them. =)

>
> I've gone through and compared the result of these 12 against my own
> tree updated to next-20120427.  We come out much the same: the only
> divergence which worried me was that my mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec() says
> 	IF (!memcg || mem_cgroup_disabled())
> 		return&zone->lruvec;
> and although I'm sure I had a reason for adding that "!memcg || ",
> I cannot now see why.  Maybe it was for some intermediate use that went
> away (but I mention it in the hope that Konstantin will double check).

memcg can be null here if and only if mem_cgroup_disabled()

After this patchset mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec() is used only in few places,
usually right after mem_cgroup_iter(), so proof is trivial.

>
> To each one of the 12 (with lruvec_zone in 02/12, and v2 of 05/12):
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@google.com>

Thanks =)

--
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>