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

Waiman Long
2021-04-15T18:47:39Z

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.

Cheers,
Longman