Message-ID: <44E7EC01.5010803@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:28:41 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	hugh@...itas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)

Kirill Korotaev wrote:

> +/*
> + *	Resource list.
> + */
> +
> +#define UB_RESOURCES	0
> +
> +struct ubparm {
> +	/*
> +	 * A barrier over which resource allocations are failed gracefully.
> +	 * e.g. if the amount of consumed memory is over the barrier further
> +	 * sbrk() or mmap() calls fail, the existing processes are not killed.
> +	 */
> +	unsigned long	barrier;
> +	/* hard resource limit */
> +	unsigned long	limit;
> +	/* consumed resources */
> +	unsigned long	held;
> +	/* maximum amount of consumed resources through the last period */
> +	unsigned long	maxheld;
> +	/* minimum amount of consumed resources through the last period */
> +	unsigned long	minheld;
> +	/* count of failed charges */
> +	unsigned long	failcnt;
> +};
> +

Comments to the side of the field would make it easier to read and understand
the structure. I think there are already other comments requesting for renaming
of the barrier field to hard_limit.

<snip>

> +static inline void ub_adjust_held_minmax(struct user_beancounter *ub,
> +		int resource)
> +{
> +	if (ub->ub_parms[resource].maxheld < ub->ub_parms[resource].held)
> +		ub->ub_parms[resource].maxheld = ub->ub_parms[resource].held;
> +	if (ub->ub_parms[resource].minheld > ub->ub_parms[resource].held)
> +		ub->ub_parms[resource].minheld = ub->ub_parms[resource].held;
> +}

A comment here to clarify what the function does would be helpful, specially due 
to the comparison above

if (maxheld < held)
	maxheld = held
if (minheld > held)
	minheld = held

<snip>

> +struct user_beancounter ub0;

How about global_ub or init_ub?

> +
> +#define ub_hash_fun(x) ((((x) >> 8) ^ (x)) & (UB_HASH_SIZE - 1))
> +#define ub_subhash_fun(p, id) ub_hash_fun((p)->ub_uid + (id) * 17)
> +

What hash properties are we looking for in the hash function? Is the hash
function universal?

> +struct hlist_head ub_hash[UB_HASH_SIZE];
> +spinlock_t ub_hash_lock;
> +
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ub_hash);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ub_hash_lock);
> +
> +/*
> + *	Per user resource beancounting. Resources are tied to their luid.
> + *	The resource structure itself is tagged both to the process and
> + *	the charging resources (a socket doesn't want to have to search for
> + *	things at irq time for example). Reference counters keep things in
> + *	hand.
> + *
> + *	The case where a user creates resource, kills all his processes and
> + *	then starts new ones is correctly handled this way. The refcounters
> + *	will mean the old entry is still around with resource tied to it.
> + */
> +
> +struct user_beancounter *beancounter_findcreate(uid_t uid,
> +		struct user_beancounter *p, int mask)
> +{
> +	struct user_beancounter *new_ub, *ub, *tmpl_ub;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct hlist_head *slot;
> +	struct hlist_node *pos;
> +
> +	if (mask & UB_LOOKUP_SUB) {
> +		WARN_ON(p == NULL);
> +		tmpl_ub = &default_subbeancounter;
> +		slot = &ub_hash[ub_subhash_fun(p, uid)];
> +	} else {
> +		WARN_ON(p != NULL);
> +		tmpl_ub = &default_beancounter;
> +		slot = &ub_hash[ub_hash_fun(uid)];
> +	}
> +	new_ub = NULL;
> +
> +retry:
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&ub_hash_lock, flags);
> +	hlist_for_each_entry (ub, pos, slot, hash)
> +		if (ub->ub_uid == uid && ub->parent == p)
> +			break;
> +
> +	if (pos != NULL) {
> +		get_beancounter(ub);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ub_hash_lock, flags);
> +
> +		if (new_ub != NULL) {
> +			put_beancounter(new_ub->parent);
> +			kmem_cache_free(ub_cachep, new_ub);
> +		}

A comment indicative of this being a part of race handing would be useful.
Could you please consider refactoring this function if possible.

> +		return ub;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!(mask & UB_ALLOC))
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +
> +	if (new_ub != NULL)
> +		goto out_install;
> +
> +	if (mask & UB_ALLOC_ATOMIC) {
> +		new_ub = kmem_cache_alloc(ub_cachep, GFP_ATOMIC);
> +		if (new_ub == NULL)
> +			goto out_unlock;
> +
> +		memcpy(new_ub, tmpl_ub, sizeof(*new_ub));
> +		init_beancounter_struct(new_ub, uid);
> +		if (p)
> +			new_ub->parent = get_beancounter(p);
> +		goto out_install;
> +	}
> +
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ub_hash_lock, flags);
> +
> +	new_ub = kmem_cache_alloc(ub_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (new_ub == NULL)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	memcpy(new_ub, tmpl_ub, sizeof(*new_ub));
> +	init_beancounter_struct(new_ub, uid);
> +	if (p)
> +		new_ub->parent = get_beancounter(p);
> +	goto retry;
> +
> +out_install:
> +	hlist_add_head(&new_ub->hash, slot);
> +out_unlock:
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ub_hash_lock, flags);
> +out:
> +	return new_ub;
> +}
> +
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(beancounter_findcreate);
> +

<snip>

> +void __put_beancounter(struct user_beancounter *ub)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct user_beancounter *parent;
> +
> +again:
> +	parent = ub->parent;
> +	/* equevalent to atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave() */
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	if (likely(!atomic_dec_and_lock(&ub->ub_refcount, &ub_hash_lock))) {
> +		if (unlikely(atomic_read(&ub->ub_refcount) < 0))
> +			printk(KERN_ERR "UB: Bad ub refcount: ub=%p, "
> +					"luid=%d, ref=%d\n",
> +					ub, ub->ub_uid,
> +					atomic_read(&ub->ub_refcount));
> +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (unlikely(ub == &ub0)) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "Trying to put ub0\n");
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ub_hash_lock, flags);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	verify_held(ub);
> +	hlist_del(&ub->hash);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ub_hash_lock, flags);

Is this function called with the ub_hash_lock held()? A comment would be useful
or you could call it __put_beancounter_locked :-)

> +
> +	kmem_cache_free(ub_cachep, ub);
> +
> +	ub = parent;
> +	if (ub != NULL)
> +		goto again;

Could you please convert this to a do {} while() loop.

> +}
> +
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__put_beancounter);

<snip>

> +int charge_beancounter(struct user_beancounter *ub,
> +		int resource, unsigned long val, enum severity strict)
> +{
> +	int retval;
> +	struct user_beancounter *p, *q;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	retval = -EINVAL;
> +	BUG_ON(val > UB_MAXVALUE);
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	for (p = ub; p != NULL; p = p->parent) {
> +		spin_lock(&p->ub_lock);
> +		retval = __charge_beancounter_locked(p, resource, val, strict);

Everyone in the hierarchy is charged the same amount - val?

> +		spin_unlock(&p->ub_lock);
> +		if (retval)
> +			goto unroll;
> +	}
> +out_restore:
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +	return retval;
> +
> +unroll:
> +	for (q = ub; q != p; q = q->parent) {
> +		spin_lock(&q->ub_lock);
> +		__uncharge_beancounter_locked(q, resource, val);
> +		spin_unlock(&q->ub_lock);
> +	}
> +	goto out_restore;

Too many goto's in both directions - please consider refactoring

> +void charge_beancounter_notop(struct user_beancounter *ub,
> +		int resource, unsigned long val)

Whats the meaning of notop?

> +{
> +	struct user_beancounter *p;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	for (p = ub; p->parent != NULL; p = p->parent) {
> +		spin_lock(&p->ub_lock);
> +		__charge_beancounter_locked(p, resource, val, UB_FORCE);
> +		spin_unlock(&p->ub_lock);
> +	}
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}
> +

Could some of this code be shared with charge_beancounter to avoid duplication?

> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(charge_beancounter_notop);
> +
> +void __uncharge_beancounter_locked(struct user_beancounter *ub,
> +		int resource, unsigned long val)
> +{
> +	if (unlikely(ub->ub_parms[resource].held < val)) {
> +		ub_print_resource_warning(ub, resource,
> +				"uncharging too much", val, 0);
> +		val = ub->ub_parms[resource].held;
> +	}
> +	ub->ub_parms[resource].held -= val;
> +	ub_adjust_held_minmax(ub, resource);
> +}
> +
> +void uncharge_beancounter(struct user_beancounter *ub,
> +		int resource, unsigned long val)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct user_beancounter *p;
> +
> +	for (p = ub; p != NULL; p = p->parent) {
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&p->ub_lock, flags);
> +		__uncharge_beancounter_locked(p, resource, val);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->ub_lock, flags);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(uncharge_beancounter);
> +
> +void uncharge_beancounter_notop(struct user_beancounter *ub,
> +		int resource, unsigned long val)
> +{
> +	struct user_beancounter *p;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	for (p = ub; p->parent != NULL; p = p->parent) {
> +		spin_lock(&p->ub_lock);
> +		__uncharge_beancounter_locked(p, resource, val);
> +		spin_unlock(&p->ub_lock);
> +	}
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}
> +

The code for both uncharge_beancounter() and uncharge_beancounter_notop() seems
to do the same thing

> +
> +void __init ub_init_late(void)
> +{
> +	struct user_beancounter *ub;
> +
> +	ub_cachep = kmem_cache_create("user_beancounters",
> +			sizeof(struct user_beancounter),
> +			0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL, NULL);
> +	if (ub_cachep == NULL)
> +		panic("Can't create ubc caches\n");
> +
> +	ub = &default_beancounter;

Whats the relationship between ub0 and default_beancounter?

> +	memset(ub, 0, sizeof(default_beancounter));
> +	init_beancounter_syslimits(ub);
> +	init_beancounter_struct(ub, 0);

Do we need to memset static global variables to 0?
> +
> +	ub = &default_subbeancounter;
> +	memset(ub, 0, sizeof(default_subbeancounter));
> +	init_beancounter_nolimits(ub);
> +	init_beancounter_struct(ub, 0);

Do we need to memset static global variables to 0?

> +}
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> ckrm-tech mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech


-- 
	Regards,
	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs
-
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