From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:16:36 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FBCAAF4.4030803@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120522154610.f2f9b78e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On 05/23/2012 02:46 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Here, we're open-coding kinda-test_bit(). Why do that? These flags are
> modified with set_bit() and friends, so we should read them with the
> matching test_bit()?
My reasoning was to be as cheap as possible, as you noted yourself two
paragraphs below.
> Also, these bool-returning functions will return values other than 0
> and 1. That probably works OK and I don't know what the C standards
> and implementations do about this. But it seems unclean and slightly
> risky to have a "bool" value of 32! Converting these functions to use
> test_bit() fixes this - test_bit() returns only 0 or 1.
>
> test_bit() is slightly more expensive than the above. If this is
> considered to be an issue then I guess we could continue to use this
> approach. But I do think a code comment is needed, explaining and
> justifying the unusual decision to bypass the bitops API. Also these
> functions should tell the truth and return an "int" type.
>
>> >
>> > +static void disarm_static_keys(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> > +{
>> > + disarm_sock_keys(memcg);
>> > +}
> Why does this function exist? Its single caller could call
> disarm_sock_keys() directly.
It exists to make it clear that this is the point in which static keys
should be disabled. I already have a patchset that introduces other
static keys, that should, of course, also be disabled here.
I am totally fine with calling directly disarm_sock_keys(), and then in
that series wrap it in disarm_static_keys, IOW, defer its introduction,
if that's how you prefer.
>
>> > static void drain_all_stock_async(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
>> >
>> > static struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *
>> > @@ -4836,6 +4854,13 @@ static void free_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> > int size = sizeof(struct mem_cgroup);
>> >
>> > memcg = container_of(work, struct mem_cgroup, work_freeing);
>> > + /*
>> > + * We need to make sure that (at least for now), the jump label
>> > + * destruction code runs outside of the cgroup lock.
> This is a poor comment - it failed to tell the reader*why* that code
> must run outside the cgroup lock.
Ok, will update.
>> > schedule_work()
>> > + * will guarantee this happens. Be careful if you need to move this
>> > + * disarm_static_keys around
> It's a bit difficult for the reader to be careful when he isn't told
> what the risks are.
Ok, will update.
>> > + */
>> > + disarm_static_keys(memcg);
>> > if (size< PAGE_SIZE)
>> > kfree(memcg);
>> > else
>> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_memcontrol.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_memcontrol.c
>> > index 1517037..3b8fa25 100644
>> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_memcontrol.c
>> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_memcontrol.c
>> > @@ -74,9 +74,6 @@ void tcp_destroy_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> > percpu_counter_destroy(&tcp->tcp_sockets_allocated);
>> >
>> > val = res_counter_read_u64(&tcp->tcp_memory_allocated, RES_LIMIT);
>> > -
>> > - if (val != RESOURCE_MAX)
>> > - static_key_slow_dec(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled);
>> > }
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_destroy_cgroup);
>> >
>> > @@ -107,10 +104,33 @@ static int tcp_update_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, u64 val)
>> > tcp->tcp_prot_mem[i] = min_t(long, val>> PAGE_SHIFT,
>> > net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_mem[i]);
>> >
>> > - if (val == RESOURCE_MAX&& old_lim != RESOURCE_MAX)
>> > - static_key_slow_dec(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled);
>> > - else if (old_lim == RESOURCE_MAX&& val != RESOURCE_MAX)
>> > - static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled);
>> > + if (val == RESOURCE_MAX)
>> > + clear_bit(MEMCG_SOCK_ACTIVE,&cg_proto->flags);
>> > + else if (val != RESOURCE_MAX) {
>> > + /*
>> > + * The active bit needs to be written after the static_key update.
>> > + * This is what guarantees that the socket activation function
>> > + * is the last one to run. See sock_update_memcg() for details,
>> > + * and note that we don't mark any socket as belonging to this
>> > + * memcg until that flag is up.
>> > + *
>> > + * We need to do this, because static_keys will span multiple
>> > + * sites, but we can't control their order. If we mark a socket
>> > + * as accounted, but the accounting functions are not patched in
>> > + * yet, we'll lose accounting.
>> > + *
>> > + * We never race with the readers in sock_update_memcg(), because
>> > + * when this value change, the code to process it is not patched in
>> > + * yet.
>> > + *
>> > + * The activated bit is used to guarantee that no two writers will
>> > + * do the update in the same memcg. Without that, we can't properly
>> > + * shutdown the static key.
>> > + */
> This comment needlessly overflows 80 cols and has a pointless and
> unconventional double-space indenting. I already provided a patch
> which fixes this and a few other things, but that was ignored when you
> did the v6.
Sorry, I missed it.
>
>> > + if (!test_and_set_bit(MEMCG_SOCK_ACTIVATED,&cg_proto->flags))
>> > + static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled);
>> > + set_bit(MEMCG_SOCK_ACTIVE,&cg_proto->flags);
>> > + }
> So here are suggested changes from*some* of the above discussion.
> Please consider, incorporate, retest and send us a v7?
How do you want me to do it? Should I add your patch ontop of mine,
and then another one that tweaks whatever else is left, or should I just
merge those changes into the patches I have?
--
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:[~2012-05-23 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-22 10:25 [PATCH v6 0/2] fix static_key disabling problem in memcg Glauber Costa
2012-05-22 10:25 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] Always free struct memcg through schedule_work() Glauber Costa
2012-05-22 10:25 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time Glauber Costa
2012-05-22 22:46 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-22 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-23 9:16 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2012-05-23 20:33 ` Andrew Morton
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=4FBCAAF4.4030803@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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).