Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm/memcg: Introduce obj_cgroup_uncharge_mod_state()

Waiman Long
2021-04-15T19:45:04Z

On 4/15/21 3:40 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:47:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 4/15/21 2:10 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:35:45PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/21 12:30 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:20:24PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>>> In memcg_slab_free_hook()/pcpu_memcg_free_hook(), obj_cgroup_uncharge()
>>>>>> is followed by mod_objcg_state()/mod_memcg_state(). Each of these
>>>>>> function call goes through a separate irq_save/irq_restore cycle. That
>>>>>> is inefficient. Introduce a new function obj_cgroup_uncharge_mod_state()
>>>>>> that combines them with a single irq_save/irq_restore cycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -3292,6 +3296,25 @@ void obj_cgroup_uncharge(struct obj_cgroup *objcg, size_t size)
>>>>>> refill_obj_stock(objcg, size);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +void obj_cgroup_uncharge_mod_state(struct obj_cgroup *objcg, size_t size,
>>>>>> + struct pglist_data *pgdat, int idx)
>>>>> The optimization makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> But please don't combine independent operations like this into a
>>>>> single function. It makes for an unclear parameter list, it's a pain
>>>>> in the behind to change the constituent operations later on, and it
>>>>> has a habit of attracting more random bools over time. E.g. what if
>>>>> the caller already has irqs disabled? What if it KNOWS that irqs are
>>>>> enabled and it could use local_irq_disable() instead of save?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just provide an __obj_cgroup_uncharge() that assumes irqs are
>>>>> disabled, combine with the existing __mod_memcg_lruvec_state(), and
>>>>> bubble the irq handling up to those callsites which know better.
>>>>>
>>>> That will also work. However, the reason I did that was because of patch 5
>>>> in the series. I could put the get_obj_stock() and put_obj_stock() code in
>>>> slab.h and allowed them to be used directly in various places, but hiding in
>>>> one function is easier.
>>> Yeah it's more obvious after getting to patch 5.
>>>
>>> But with the irq disabling gone entirely, is there still an incentive
>>> to combine the atomic section at all? Disabling preemption is pretty
>>> cheap, so it wouldn't matter to just do it twice.
>>>
>>> I.e. couldn't the final sequence in slab code simply be
>>>
>>> objcg_uncharge()
>>> mod_objcg_state()
>>>
>>> again and each function disables preemption (and in the rare case
>>> irqs) as it sees fit?
>>>
>>> You lose the irqsoff batching in the cold path, but as you say, hit
>>> rates are pretty good, and it doesn't seem worth complicating the code
>>> for the cold path.
>>>
>> That does make sense, though a little bit of performance may be lost. I will
>> try that out to see how it work out performance wise.
> Thanks.
>
> Even if we still end up doing it, it's great to have that cost
> isolated, so we know how much extra code complexity corresponds to how
> much performance gain. It seems the task/irq split could otherwise be
> a pretty localized change with no API implications.
>
I still want to move mod_objcg_state() function to memcontrol.c though
as I don't want to put any obj_stock stuff in mm/slab.h.

Cheers,
Longman