| 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: Tue, 15 May 2018 11:55:04 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, pombredanne@...b.com, stummala@...eaurora.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, guro@...com,
mka@...omium.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, longman@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, jbacik@...com,
linux@...ck-us.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, willy@...radead.org, lirongqing@...du.com,
aryabinin@...tuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/13] mm: Clear shrinker bit if there are no objects
related to memcg
On 15.05.2018 08:59, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:54:15PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> To avoid further unneed calls of do_shrink_slab()
>> for shrinkers, which already do not have any charged
>> objects in a memcg, their bits have to be cleared.
>>
>> This patch introduces a lockless mechanism to do that
>> without races without parallel list lru add. After
>> do_shrink_slab() returns SHRINK_EMPTY the first time,
>> we clear the bit and call it once again. Then we restore
>> the bit, if the new return value is different.
>>
>> Note, that single smp_mb__after_atomic() in shrink_slab_memcg()
>> covers two situations:
>>
>> 1)list_lru_add() shrink_slab_memcg
>> list_add_tail() for_each_set_bit() <--- read bit
>> do_shrink_slab() <--- missed list update (no barrier)
>> <MB> <MB>
>> set_bit() do_shrink_slab() <--- seen list update
>>
>> This situation, when the first do_shrink_slab() sees set bit,
>> but it doesn't see list update (i.e., race with the first element
>> queueing), is rare. So we don't add <MB> before the first call
>> of do_shrink_slab() instead of this to do not slow down generic
>> case. Also, it's need the second call as seen in below in (2).
>>
>> 2)list_lru_add() shrink_slab_memcg()
>> list_add_tail() ...
>> set_bit() ...
>> ... for_each_set_bit()
>> do_shrink_slab() do_shrink_slab()
>> clear_bit() ...
>> ... ...
>> list_lru_add() ...
>> list_add_tail() clear_bit()
>> <MB> <MB>
>> set_bit() do_shrink_slab()
>>
>> The barriers guarantees, the second do_shrink_slab()
>> in the right side task sees list update if really
>> cleared the bit. This case is drawn in the code comment.
>>
>> [Results/performance of the patchset]
>>
>> After the whole patchset applied the below test shows signify
>> increase of performance:
>>
>> $echo 1 > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.use_hierarchy
>> $mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct
>> $echo 4000M > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct/memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes
>> $for i in `seq 0 4000`; do mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct/$i; echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct/$i/cgroup.procs; mkdir -p s/$i; mount -t tmpfs $i s/$i; touch s/$i/file; done
>>
>> Then, 5 sequential calls of drop caches:
>> $time echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>>
>> 1)Before:
>> 0.00user 13.78system 0:13.78elapsed 99%CPU
>> 0.00user 5.59system 0:05.60elapsed 99%CPU
>> 0.00user 5.48system 0:05.48elapsed 99%CPU
>> 0.00user 8.35system 0:08.35elapsed 99%CPU
>> 0.00user 8.34system 0:08.35elapsed 99%CPU
>>
>> 2)After
>> 0.00user 1.10system 0:01.10elapsed 99%CPU
>> 0.00user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 64%CPU
>> 0.00user 0.01system 0:00.01elapsed 82%CPU
>> 0.00user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 64%CPU
>> 0.00user 0.01system 0:00.01elapsed 82%CPU
>>
>> The results show the performance increases at least in 548 times.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 2 ++
>> mm/vmscan.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> index 436691a66500..82c0bf2d0579 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> @@ -1283,6 +1283,8 @@ static inline void memcg_set_shrinker_bit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid, int
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> map = MEMCG_SHRINKER_MAP(memcg, nid);
>> + /* Pairs with smp mb in shrink_slab() */
>> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
>> set_bit(nr, map->map);
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> }
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index 7b0075612d73..189b163bef4a 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -586,8 +586,23 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>> continue;
>>
>> ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
>> - if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
>> - ret = 0;
>> + if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY) {
>> + clear_bit(i, map->map);
>> + /*
>> + * Pairs with mb in memcg_set_shrinker_bit():
>> + *
>> + * list_lru_add() shrink_slab_memcg()
>> + * list_add_tail() clear_bit()
>> + * <MB> <MB>
>> + * set_bit() do_shrink_slab()
>> + */
>
> Please improve the comment so that it isn't just a diagram.
Please, say, which comment you want to see here.
>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> + ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
>> + if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
>> + ret = 0;
>> + else
>> + memcg_set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, i);
>> + }
>> freed += ret;
>>
>> if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists