linux-kernel - Re: [patch 10/11] mm: make per-memcg LRU lists exclusive

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:47:45 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 10/11] mm: make per-memcg LRU lists exclusive

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:24:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-09-11 12:57:27, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Now that all code that operated on global per-zone LRU lists is
> > converted to operate on per-memory cgroup LRU lists instead, there is
> > no reason to keep the double-LRU scheme around any longer.
> > 
> > The pc->lru member is removed and page->lru is linked directly to the
> > per-memory cgroup LRU lists, which removes two pointers from a
> > descriptor that exists for every page frame in the system.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

Thanks.

> > @@ -934,115 +954,123 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mem_cgroup_count_vm_event);
> >   * When moving account, the page is not on LRU. It's isolated.
> >   */
> >  
> > -struct page *mem_cgroup_lru_to_page(struct zone *zone, struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> > -				    enum lru_list lru)
> > +/**
> > + * mem_cgroup_lru_add_list - account for adding an lru page and return lruvec
> > + * @zone: zone of the page
> > + * @page: the page
> > + * @lru: current lru
> > + *
> > + * This function accounts for @page being added to @lru, and returns
> > + * the lruvec for the given @zone and the memcg @page is charged to.
> > + *
> > + * The callsite is then responsible for physically linking the page to
> > + * the returned lruvec->lists[@lru].
> > + */
> > +struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_lru_add_list(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
> > +				       enum lru_list lru)
> 
> I know that names are alway tricky but what about mem_cgroup_acct_lru_add?
> Analogously for mem_cgroup_lru_del_list, mem_cgroup_lru_del and
> mem_cgroup_lru_move_lists.

Hmm, but it doesn't just lru-account, it also looks up the right
lruvec for the caller to link the page to, so it's not necessarily an
improvement, although I agree that the name could be better.

> > @@ -3615,11 +3593,11 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
> >  static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_list(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >  				int node, int zid, enum lru_list lru)
> >  {
> > -	struct zone *zone;
> >  	struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz;
> > -	struct page_cgroup *pc, *busy;
> >  	unsigned long flags, loop;
> >  	struct list_head *list;
> > +	struct page *busy;
> > +	struct zone *zone;
> 
> Any specific reason to move zone declaration down here? Not that it
> matters much. Just curious.

I find this arrangement more readable, I believe Ingo Molnar called it
the reverse christmas tree once :-).  Longest lines first, then sort
lines of equal length alphabetically.

And since it was basically complete, except for @zone, I just HAD to!

> > @@ -3639,16 +3618,16 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_list(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >  			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> >  			break;
> >  		}
> > -		pc = list_entry(list->prev, struct page_cgroup, lru);
> > -		if (busy == pc) {
> > -			list_move(&pc->lru, list);
> > +		page = list_entry(list->prev, struct page, lru);
> > +		if (busy == page) {
> > +			list_move(&page->lru, list);
> >  			busy = NULL;
> >  			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> >  			continue;
> >  		}
> >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> >  
> > -		page = lookup_cgroup_page(pc);
> > +		pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> 
> lookup_page_cgroup might return NULL so we probably want BUG_ON(!pc)
> here. We are not very consistent about checking the return value,
> though.

I think this is a myth and we should remove all those checks.  How can
pages circulate in userspace before they are fully onlined and their
page_cgroup buddies allocated?  In this case: how would they have been
charged in the first place and sit on a list without a list_head? :-)
--
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/