Re: [PATCH 3/5] page_cgroup: make page tracking available for blkio

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-23T04:56:07Z

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:37:18 +0100
Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:06:30PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:01:47AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:45PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:12:54 +0100
> > > > Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The page_cgroup infrastructure, currently available only for the memory
> > > > > cgroup controller, can be used to store the owner of each page and
> > > > > opportunely track the writeback IO. This information is encoded in
> > > > > the upper 16-bits of the page_cgroup->flags.
> > > > >
> > > > > A owner can be identified using a generic ID number and the following
> > > > > interfaces are provided to store a retrieve this information:
> > > > >
> > > > > unsigned long page_cgroup_get_owner(struct page *page);
> > > > > int page_cgroup_set_owner(struct page *page, unsigned long id);
> > > > > int page_cgroup_copy_owner(struct page *npage, struct page *opage);
> > > >
> > > > My immediate observation is that you're not really tracking the "owner"
> > > > here - you're tracking an opaque 16-bit token known only to the block
> > > > controller in a field which - if changed by anybody other than the block
> > > > controller - will lead to mayhem in the block controller. I think it
> > > > might be clearer - and safer - to say "blkcg" or some such instead of
> > > > "owner" here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Basically the idea here was to be as generic as possible and make this
> > > feature potentially available also to other subsystems, so that cgroup
> > > subsystems may represent whatever they want with the 16-bit token.
> > > However, no more than a single subsystem may be able to use this feature
> > > at the same time.
> > >
> > > > I'm tempted to say it might be better to just add a pointer to your
> > > > throtl_grp structure into struct page_cgroup. Or maybe replace the
> > > > mem_cgroup pointer with a single pointer to struct css_set. Both of
> > > > those ideas, though, probably just add unwanted extra overhead now to gain
> > > > generality which may or may not be wanted in the future.
> > >
> > > The pointer to css_set sounds good, but it would add additional space to
> > > the page_cgroup struct. Now, page_cgroup is 40 bytes (in 64-bit arch)
> > > and all of them are allocated at boot time. Using unused bits in
> > > page_cgroup->flags is a choice with no overhead from this point of view.
> >
> > I think John suggested replacing mem_cgroup pointer with css_set so that
> > size of the strcuture does not increase but it leads extra level of
> > indirection.
>
> OK, got it sorry.
>
> So, IIUC we save css_set pointer and get a struct cgroup as following:
>
> struct cgroup *cgrp = css_set->subsys[subsys_id]->cgroup;
>
> Then, for example to get the mem_cgroup reference:
>
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>
> It seems a lot of indirections, but I may have done something wrong or
> there could be a simpler way to do it.
>

Then, page_cgroup should have reference count on css_set and make tons of
atomic ops.

BTW, bits of pc->flags are used for storing sectionID or nodeID.
Please clarify your 16bit never breaks that information. And please keep
more 4-5 flags for dirty_ratio support of memcg.

I wonder I can make pc->mem_cgroup to be pc->memid(16bit), then,
==
static inline struct mem_cgroup *get_memcg_from_pc(struct page_cgroup *pc)
{
struct cgroup_subsys_state *css = css_lookup(&mem_cgroup_subsys, pc->memid);
return container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);
}
==
Overhead will be seen at updating file statistics and LRU management.

But, hmm, can't you do that tracking without page_cgroup ?
Because the number of dirty/writeback pages are far smaller than total pages,
chasing I/O with dynamic structure is not very bad..

prepareing [pfn -> blkio] record table and move that information to struct bio
in dynamic way is very difficult ?

Thanks,
-Kame