Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: add per cgroup dirty pages accounting

[Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@gmail.com>]

On 06/22/2012 07:09 AM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2012/06/22 1:02), Greg Thelen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21 2012, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>>
>>> (2012/06/19 23:31), Sha Zhengju wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki
>>>> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>   wrote:
>>>>> (2012/06/16 0:32), Greg Thelen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch adds memcg routines to count dirty pages. I notice that
>>>>>>> the list has talked about per-cgroup dirty page limiting
>>>>>>> (http://lwn.net/Articles/455341/) before, but it did not get 
>>>>>>> merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good timing, I was just about to make another effort to get some of
>>>>>> these patches upstream.  Like you, I was going to start with some 
>>>>>> basic
>>>>>> counters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your approach is similar to what I have in mind.  While it is 
>>>>>> good to
>>>>>> use the existing PageDirty flag, rather than introducing a new
>>>>>> page_cgroup flag, there are locking complications (see below) to 
>>>>>> handle
>>>>>> races between moving pages between memcg and the pages being 
>>>>>> {un}marked
>>>>>> dirty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've no idea how is this going now, but maybe we can add per cgroup
>>>>>>> dirty pages accounting first. This allows the memory controller to
>>>>>>> maintain an accurate view of the amount of its memory that is dirty
>>>>>>> and can provide some infomation while group's direct reclaim is 
>>>>>>> working.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After commit 89c06bd5 (memcg: use new logic for page stat 
>>>>>>> accounting),
>>>>>>> we do not need per page_cgroup flag anymore and can directly use
>>>>>>> struct page flag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju<handai.szj@taobao.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    include/linux/memcontrol.h |    1 +
>>>>>>>    mm/filemap.c               |    1 +
>>>>>>>    mm/memcontrol.c            |   32 
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>>>>    mm/page-writeback.c        |    2 ++
>>>>>>>    mm/truncate.c              |    1 +
>>>>>>>    5 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h 
>>>>>>> b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>>>>> index a337c2e..8154ade 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>>>>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
>>>>>>>          MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED,  /* # of pages charged as 
>>>>>>> file rss */
>>>>>>>          MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SWAPOUT, /* # of pages, swapped out */
>>>>>>>          MEM_CGROUP_STAT_DATA, /* end of data requires 
>>>>>>> synchronization */
>>>>>>> +       MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_DIRTY,  /* # of dirty pages in page 
>>>>>>> cache */
>>>>>>>          MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
>>>>>>>    };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
>>>>>>> index 79c4b2b..5b5c121 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/filemap.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
>>>>>>> @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ void __delete_from_page_cache(struct page 
>>>>>>> *page)
>>>>>>>           * having removed the page entirely.
>>>>>>>           */
>>>>>>>          if (PageDirty(page)&&     
>>>>>>> mapping_cap_account_dirty(mapping)) {
>>>>>>> +               mem_cgroup_dec_page_stat(page,
>>>>>>> MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_DIRTY);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to use mem_cgroup_{begin,end}_update_page_stat around 
>>>>>> critical
>>>>>> sections that:
>>>>>> 1) check PageDirty
>>>>>> 2) update MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_DIRTY counter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This protects against the page from being moved between memcg while
>>>>>> accounting.  Same comment applies to all of your new calls to
>>>>>> mem_cgroup_{dec,inc}_page_stat.  For usage pattern, see
>>>>>> page_add_file_rmap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you feel some difficulty with 
>>>>> mem_cgroup_{begin,end}_update_page_stat(),
>>>>> please let me know...I hope they should work enough....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Kame
>>>>
>>>> While digging into the bigger lock of 
>>>> mem_cgroup_{begin,end}_update_page_stat(),
>>>> I find the reality is more complex than I thought. Simply stated,
>>>> modifying page info
>>>> and update page stat may be wide apart and in different level (eg.
>>>> mm&fs), so if we
>>>> use the big lock it may lead to scalability and maintainability 
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>        mem_cgroup_begin_update_page_stat()
>>>>        modify page information                 =>   
>>>> TestSetPageDirty ina??ceph_set_page_dirty() (fs/ceph/addr.c)
>>>>        XXXXXX                                  =>   other fs 
>>>> operations
>>>>        mem_cgroup_update_page_stat()   =>   account_page_dirtied() 
>>>> ina??mm/page-writeback.c
>>>>        mem_cgroup_end_update_page_stat().
>>>>
>>>> We can choose to get lock in higher level meaning vfs set_page_dirty()
>>>> but this may span
>>>> too much and can also have some missing cases.
>>>> What's your opinion of this problem?
>>>>
>>>
>>> yes, that's sad....If set_page_dirty() is always called under 
>>> lock_page(), the
>>> story will be easier (we'll take lock_page() in move side.)
>>> but the comment on set_page_dirty() says it's not true.....Now, I 
>>> haven't found a magical
>>> way for avoiding the race.
>>> (*) If holding lock_page() in move_account() can be a generic 
>>> solution, it will be good.
>>>      A proposal from me is a small-start. You can start from adding 
>>> hooks to a
>>> generic
>>> functions as set_page_dirty() and __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(), 
>>> clear_page_dirty_for_io().
>>>
>>> And see what happens. I guess we can add WARN_ONCE() against callers 
>>> of update_page_stat()
>>> who don't take mem_cgroup_begin/end_update_page_stat()
>>> (by some new check, for example, checking !rcu_read_lock_held() in 
>>> update_stat())
>>>
>>> I think we can make TODO list and catch up remaining things one by one.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Kame
>>
>> This might be a crazy idea.  Synchronization of PageDirty with the
>> page->memcg->nr_dirty counter is a challenge because page->memcg can be
>> reassigned due to inter-memcg page moving.
>
> Yes. That's the heart of the problem.
>
>> Could we avoid moving dirty pages between memcg?
>
> How to detect it is the proebm here....
>
>> Specifically, could we make them clean before moving.
>
> I considered that but a case
>
>         CPU-A                CPU-B
>     wait_for_page_cleaned
>     .....                    SetPageDirty()
>     account-memcg-nr_dirty
>
> is problematic. _If_
>
>         CPU-A
>     lock_page()
>     move_page_for_accounting()
>     unlock_page()
>
> can help 99% of cases, I think this is a choice. But I haven't 
> investigated
> how many callers of set_page_dirty() holds locks....
> (I guess CleraPageDirty() callers are under lock_page() always...by 
> quick look.)
>
> If most of callers calls lock_page() or 
> mem_cgroup_begin/end_update....I think
> adding WARNING(!page_locked(page) || !rcu_read_locked()) to 
> update_stat() will
> be a proof of concept and automatically shows what we should do more...
>
>> This problem feels similar to page migration.  This would slow
>> down inter-memcg page movement, because it would require writeback.  But
>> I'm suspect that this is an infrequent operation.
>
> I agree. But, IIUC, the reason page-migration waits for the end of I/O 
> is that migrating
> pages under I/O (in being copied by devices) seems crazy. So, just 
> lock_page()
> will be an enough help....
>
Hi, Kame

I've checked some set_page_dirty callers and found that dozes of them 
don't lock the page.
Following is some comments of __set_page_dirty_nobuffers:

  * Most callers have locked the page, which pins the address_space in 
memory.
  * But zap_pte_range() does not lock the page, however in that case the
  * mapping is pinned by the vma's ->vm_file reference.

So lock_page() may not be enough too.
Meanwhile, the move side have already  token mem_cgroup_begin/end_update 
lock for
FILE_MAPPED page accounting and it may be too heavy to hold another page 
lock.

I try to rework vfs set dirty page routines to make SetPageDirty and 
dirty page accounting be
in generic interfaces and still use mem_cgroup_begin/end_update lock. I 
also add writeback
page accounting in similar way but more easier.

I've sent out the patch set. Please feel free to point out any mistakes.

Thanks,
Sha

--
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>