linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH v3] memcg: fix behavior of per cpu charge cache draining.

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:12:19 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	"bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH v3] memcg: fix behavior of per cpu charge cache
 draining.

On Thu 09-06-11 09:30:45, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> From 0ebd8a90a91d50c512e7c63e5529a22e44e84c42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:51:11 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix behavior of per-cpu charge cache draining in memcg.
> 
> For performance, memory cgroup caches some "charge" from res_counter
> into per cpu cache. This works well but because it's cache,
> it needs to be flushed in some cases. Typical cases are
> 	1. when someone hit limit.
> 	2. when rmdir() is called and need to charges to be 0.
> 
> But "1" has problem.
> 
> Recently, with large SMP machines, we many kworker runs because
> of flushing memcg's cache. Bad things in implementation are
> 
> a) it's called before calling try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
>    so, it's called immidiately when a task hit limit.
>    (I though it was better to avoid to run into memory reclaim.
>     But it was wrong decision.)
> 
> b) Even if a cpu contains a cache for memcg not related to
>    a memcg which hits limit, drain code is called.
> 
> This patch fixes a) and b) by
> 
> A) delay calling of flushing until one run of try_to_free...
>    Then, the number of calling is decreased.
> B) check percpu cache contains a useful data or not.
> plus
> C) check asynchronous percpu draining doesn't run.
> 
> BTW, why this patch relpaces atomic_t counter with mutex is
> to guarantee a memcg which is pointed by stock->cacne is
> not destroyed while we check css_id.
> 
> Reported-by: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> 
> Changelog:
>  - fixed typo.
>  - fixed rcu_read_lock() and add strict mutal execution between
>    asynchronous and synchronous flushing. It's requred for validness
>    of cached pointer.
>  - add root_mem->use_hierarchy check.
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c |   54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index bd9052a..3baddcb 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
[...]
>  static struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *
>  mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int nid, int zid)
> @@ -1670,8 +1670,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
>  		victim = mem_cgroup_select_victim(root_mem);
>  		if (victim == root_mem) {
>  			loop++;
> -			if (loop >= 1)
> -				drain_all_stock_async();
>  			if (loop >= 2) {
>  				/*
>  				 * If we have not been able to reclaim
> @@ -1723,6 +1721,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
>  				return total;
>  		} else if (mem_cgroup_margin(root_mem))
>  			return total;
> +		drain_all_stock_async(root_mem);
>  	}
>  	return total;
>  }

I still think that we pointlessly reclaim even though we could have a
lot of pages pre-charged in the cache (the more CPUs we have the more
significant this might be).
Now that drain_all_stock_async is more targeted with your patch doesn't
it make sense to call it before we start what-ever reclaim and call
mem_cgroup_margin right after?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
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/