| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:38:39 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: avoiding unnecessary get_page at
move_charge
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:29:01 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:11:09 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > perf's log is
> > 10.82% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_lru_page
> > 10.01% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mem_cgroup_move_account
> > 8.75% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] is_target_pte_for_mc
> > 8.52% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ____pagevec_lru_add
> > 6.90% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] putback_lru_page
> > 6.36% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mem_cgroup_add_lru_list
> > 6.22% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mem_cgroup_del_lru_list
> > 5.68% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] lookup_page_cgroup
> > 5.28% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __lru_cache_add
> > 5.00% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] release_pages
> > 3.79% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irq
> > 3.52% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcg_check_events
> > 3.38% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] bit_spin_lock
> > 3.25% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] put_page
> >
> > seems nice. I updated isolate_lru_page()'s comment, too.
> >
> > # Note: isolate_lru_page() is necessary before account move for avoinding
> > memcg's LRU manipulation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > mm/vmscan.c | 3 +-
> > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: mmotm-1013/mm/memcontrol.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- mmotm-1013.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ mmotm-1013/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1169,7 +1169,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_end_move(struct m
> > * under hierarchy of moving cgroups. This is for
> > * waiting at hith-memory prressure caused by "move".
> > */
> > -
> > static bool mem_cgroup_stealed(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > {
> > VM_BUG_ON(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> > @@ -4471,11 +4470,14 @@ one_by_one:
> > * Returns
> > * 0(MC_TARGET_NONE): if the pte is not a target for move charge.
> > * 1(MC_TARGET_PAGE): if the page corresponding to this pte is a target for
> > - * move charge. if @target is not NULL, the page is stored in target->page
> > - * with extra refcnt got(Callers should handle it).
> > + * move charge and it's mapped.. if @target is not NULL, the page is
> > + * stored in target->pagewithout extra refcnt.
> ^^ needs ' '.
>
> > * 2(MC_TARGET_SWAP): if the swap entry corresponding to this pte is a
> > * target for charge migration. if @target is not NULL, the entry is stored
> > * in target->ent.
> > + * 3(MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE): if the page corresponding to this pte is a
> > + * target for move charge. if @target is not NULL, the page is stored in
> > + * target->page with extra refcnt got(Callers should handle it).
> > *
> > * Called with pte lock held.
> > */
> > @@ -4486,8 +4488,9 @@ union mc_target {
> >
> > enum mc_target_type {
> > MC_TARGET_NONE, /* not used */
> > - MC_TARGET_PAGE,
> > + MC_TARGET_PAGE, /* a page mapped */
> > MC_TARGET_SWAP,
> > + MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE, /* a page unmapped */
> > };
> >
> I prefer the order of "MC_TARGET_PAGE", "MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE", and "MC_TARGET_SWAP".
>
ok.
> > static struct page *mc_handle_present_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > @@ -4504,9 +4507,10 @@ static struct page *mc_handle_present_pt
> > } else if (!move_file())
> > /* we ignore mapcount for file pages */
> > return NULL;
> > - if (!get_page_unless_zero(page))
> > - return NULL;
> > -
> > + /*
> > + * Because we're under pte_lock and the page is mapped,
> > + * get_page() isn't necessary
> > + */
> > return page;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -4570,14 +4574,18 @@ static int is_target_pte_for_mc(struct v
> > struct page *page = NULL;
> > struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > int ret = 0;
> > + bool present = true;
> > swp_entry_t ent = { .val = 0 };
> >
> > if (pte_present(ptent))
> > page = mc_handle_present_pte(vma, addr, ptent);
> > - else if (is_swap_pte(ptent))
> > - page = mc_handle_swap_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
> > - else if (pte_none(ptent) || pte_file(ptent))
> > - page = mc_handle_file_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
> > + else {
> > + present = false;
> > + if (is_swap_pte(ptent))
> > + page = mc_handle_swap_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
> > + else if (pte_none(ptent) || pte_file(ptent))
> > + page = mc_handle_file_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
> > + }
> >
> > if (!page && !ent.val)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -4589,11 +4597,15 @@ static int is_target_pte_for_mc(struct v
> > * the lock.
> > */
> > if (PageCgroupUsed(pc) && pc->mem_cgroup == mc.from) {
> > - ret = MC_TARGET_PAGE;
> > + if (present)
> > + ret = MC_TARGET_PAGE;
> > + else
> > + ret = MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE;
> > if (target)
> > target->page = page;
> > }
> > - if (!ret || !target)
> > + /* We got refcnt but the page is not for target */
> > + if (!present && (!ret || !target))
> > put_page(page);
> > }
> > /* There is a swap entry and a page doesn't exist or isn't charged */
> > @@ -4780,19 +4792,24 @@ retry:
> > type = is_target_pte_for_mc(vma, addr, ptent, &target);
> > switch (type) {
> > case MC_TARGET_PAGE:
> > + case MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE:
> > page = target.page;
> > - if (isolate_lru_page(page))
> > - goto put;
> > - pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > - if (!mem_cgroup_move_account(pc,
> > + if (!isolate_lru_page(page)) {
> > + pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > + if (!mem_cgroup_move_account(pc,
> > mc.from, mc.to, false)) {
> > - mc.precharge--;
> > - /* we uncharge from mc.from later. */
> > - mc.moved_charge++;
> > + mc.precharge--;
> > + /* we uncharge from mc.from later. */
> > + mc.moved_charge++;
> > + }
> > + putback_lru_page(page);
> > }
> > - putback_lru_page(page);
> > -put: /* is_target_pte_for_mc() gets the page */
> > - put_page(page);
> > + /*
> > + * Because we holds pte_lock, we have a stable reference * to the page if mapped. If not mapped, we have an
>
> You need a new line :)
>
yes.
I'll reorder patches and push this after dirty_ratio patches goes.
But before doing that, I'll show an extreme version.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists