From: Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 3/4] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:12:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100309001252.GB13490@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100308173100.b5997fd4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 05:31:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:07:11 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:37:11 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:17:24 +0900
> > > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But IIRC, clear_writeback is done under treelock.... No ?
> > > > >
> > > > The place where NR_WRITEBACK is updated is out of tree_lock.
> > > >
> > > > 1311 int test_clear_page_writeback(struct page *page)
> > > > 1312 {
> > > > 1313 struct address_space *mapping = page_mapping(page);
> > > > 1314 int ret;
> > > > 1315
> > > > 1316 if (mapping) {
> > > > 1317 struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
> > > > 1318 unsigned long flags;
> > > > 1319
> > > > 1320 spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
> > > > 1321 ret = TestClearPageWriteback(page);
> > > > 1322 if (ret) {
> > > > 1323 radix_tree_tag_clear(&mapping->page_tree,
> > > > 1324 page_index(page),
> > > > 1325 PAGECACHE_TAG_WRITEBACK);
> > > > 1326 if (bdi_cap_account_writeback(bdi)) {
> > > > 1327 __dec_bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> > > > 1328 __bdi_writeout_inc(bdi);
> > > > 1329 }
> > > > 1330 }
> > > > 1331 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
> > > > 1332 } else {
> > > > 1333 ret = TestClearPageWriteback(page);
> > > > 1334 }
> > > > 1335 if (ret)
> > > > 1336 dec_zone_page_state(page, NR_WRITEBACK);
> > > > 1337 return ret;
> > > > 1338 }
> > >
> > > We can move this up to under tree_lock. Considering memcg, all our target has "mapping".
> > >
> > > If we newly account bounce-buffers (for NILFS, FUSE, etc..), which has no ->mapping,
> > > we need much more complex new charge/uncharge theory.
> > >
> > > But yes, adding new lock scheme seems complicated. (Sorry Andrea.)
> > > My concerns is performance. We may need somehing new re-implementation of
> > > locks/migrate/charge/uncharge.
> > >
> > I agree. Performance is my concern too.
> >
> > I made a patch below and measured the time(average of 10 times) of kernel build
> > on tmpfs(make -j8 on 8 CPU machine with 2.6.33 defconfig).
> >
> > <before>
> > - root cgroup: 190.47 sec
> > - child cgroup: 192.81 sec
> >
> > <after>
> > - root cgroup: 191.06 sec
> > - child cgroup: 193.06 sec
> >
> > Hmm... about 0.3% slower for root, 0.1% slower for child.
> >
>
> Hmm...accepatable ? (sounds it's in error-range)
>
> BTW, why local_irq_disable() ?
> local_irq_save()/restore() isn't better ?
Probably there's not the overhead of saving flags? Anyway, it would make
the code much more readable...
Thanks,
-Andrea
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
> > ===
> > From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> >
> > In current implementation, we don't have to disable irq at lock_page_cgroup()
> > because the lock is never acquired in interrupt context.
> > But we are going to do it in later patch, so this patch encloses all of
> > lock_page_cgroup()/unlock_page_cgroup() with irq_disabled()/irq_enabled().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 02ea959..e5ae1a1 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1359,6 +1359,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(struct page *page, int val)
> > if (unlikely(!pc))
> > return;
> >
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > if (!mem)
> > @@ -1374,6 +1375,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(struct page *page, int val)
> >
> > done:
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1711,6 +1713,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
> > VM_BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> >
> > pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > if (PageCgroupUsed(pc)) {
> > mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > @@ -1726,6 +1729,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > return mem;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1742,9 +1746,11 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_commit_charge(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> > if (!mem)
> > return;
> >
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > if (unlikely(PageCgroupUsed(pc))) {
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(mem);
> > return;
> > }
> > @@ -1775,6 +1781,7 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_commit_charge(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> > mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(mem, pc, true);
> >
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > /*
> > * "charge_statistics" updated event counter. Then, check it.
> > * Insert ancestor (and ancestor's ancestors), to softlimit RB-tree.
> > @@ -1844,12 +1851,14 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struct page_cgroup *pc,
> > struct mem_cgroup *from, struct mem_cgroup *to, bool uncharge)
> > {
> > int ret = -EINVAL;
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > if (PageCgroupUsed(pc) && pc->mem_cgroup == from) {
> > __mem_cgroup_move_account(pc, from, to, uncharge);
> > ret = 0;
> > }
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > /*
> > * check events
> > */
> > @@ -1981,12 +1990,15 @@ int mem_cgroup_cache_charge(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > if (!pc)
> > return 0;
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > if (PageCgroupUsed(pc)) {
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > return 0;
> > }
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > }
> >
> > if (unlikely(!mm && !mem))
> > @@ -2182,6 +2194,7 @@ __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common(struct page *page, enum charge_type ctype)
> > if (unlikely(!pc || !PageCgroupUsed(pc)))
> > return NULL;
> >
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> >
> > mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > @@ -2222,6 +2235,7 @@ __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common(struct page *page, enum charge_type ctype)
> >
> > mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc);
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> >
> > memcg_check_events(mem, page);
> > /* at swapout, this memcg will be accessed to record to swap */
> > @@ -2232,6 +2246,7 @@ __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common(struct page *page, enum charge_type ctype)
> >
> > unlock_out:
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -2424,12 +2439,14 @@ int mem_cgroup_prepare_migration(struct page *page, struct mem_cgroup **ptr)
> > return 0;
> >
> > pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > + local_irq_disable();
> > lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > if (PageCgroupUsed(pc)) {
> > mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > css_get(&mem->css);
> > }
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + local_irq_enable();
> >
> > if (mem) {
> > ret = __mem_cgroup_try_charge(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, &mem, false);
> > --
> > 1.6.4
> >
> >
--
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:[~2010-03-09 0:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-07 20:57 [PATCH -mmotm 0/4] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v5) Andrea Righi
2010-03-07 20:57 ` [PATCH -mmotm 1/4] memcg: dirty memory documentation Andrea Righi
2010-03-07 20:57 ` [PATCH -mmotm 2/4] page_cgroup: introduce file cache flags Andrea Righi
2010-03-07 20:57 ` [PATCH -mmotm 3/4] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure Andrea Righi
2010-03-08 1:44 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-08 1:56 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-08 2:17 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-08 2:37 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-08 8:07 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-08 8:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-09 0:12 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2010-03-09 0:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-09 1:29 ` [PATCH mmotm 2.5/4] memcg: disable irq at page cgroup lock (Re: [PATCH -mmotm 3/4] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure) Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-09 2:07 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-09 4:50 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-10 1:43 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-10 3:56 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-11 4:31 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-11 4:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-11 4:58 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-11 5:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-11 6:15 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-11 7:50 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-11 8:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-11 16:54 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-03-11 22:34 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-11 23:46 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-09 9:07 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-09 0:18 ` [PATCH -mmotm 3/4] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-09 0:20 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-09 0:52 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-09 0:03 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-07 20:57 ` [PATCH -mmotm 4/4] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation Andrea Righi
2010-03-08 2:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-03-04 10:40 [PATCH -mmotm 0/4] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v4) Andrea Righi
2010-03-04 10:40 ` [PATCH -mmotm 3/4] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure Andrea Righi
2010-03-04 11:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2010-03-05 1:12 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-05 1:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-05 7:01 ` Balbir Singh
2010-03-05 22:14 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-05 22:14 ` Andrea Righi
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=20100309001252.GB13490@linux \
--to=arighi@develer.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).