| 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, 17 Feb 2009 08:42:04 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Memory controller soft limit reclaim on
contention (v2)
* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> [2009-02-17 10:20:44]:
> >
> > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Changelog v2...v1
> > 1. Added support for hierarchical soft limits
> >
> > This patch allows reclaim from memory cgroups on contention (via the
> > __alloc_pages_internal() path). If a order greater than 0 is specified, we
> > anyway fall back on try_to_free_pages().
> >
> > memory cgroup soft limit reclaim finds the group that exceeds its soft limit
> > by the largest amount and reclaims pages from it and then reinserts the
> > cgroup into its correct place in the rbtree.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >
> > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 1
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > mm/page_alloc.c | 10 ++++
> > 3 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > index 18146c9..a50f73e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_disabled(void)
> > }
> >
> > extern bool mem_cgroup_oom_called(struct task_struct *task);
> > +extern unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask);
> >
> > #else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR */
> > struct mem_cgroup;
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index a2617ac..dd835d3 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> > struct rb_node mem_cgroup_node;
> > unsigned long long usage_in_excess;
> > unsigned long last_tree_update;
> > + bool on_tree;
> >
> > /*
> > * statistics. This must be placed at the end of memcg.
> > @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> > struct mem_cgroup_stat stat;
> > };
> >
> > -#define MEM_CGROUP_TREE_UPDATE_INTERVAL (HZ)
> > +#define MEM_CGROUP_TREE_UPDATE_INTERVAL (HZ/4)
>
> ??
> moving [3/4] is proper more?
>
Yes, I can move it there. Thanks!
>
> >
> > enum charge_type {
> > MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_CACHE = 0,
> > @@ -229,14 +230,15 @@ static void mem_cgroup_get(struct mem_cgroup *mem);
> > static void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *mem);
> > static struct mem_cgroup *parent_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *mem);
> >
> > -static void mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > +static void __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > {
> > struct rb_node **p = &mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded_groups.rb_node;
> > struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
> > struct mem_cgroup *mem_node;
> > - unsigned long flags;
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > + if (mem->on_tree)
> > + return;
> > +
> > while (*p) {
> > parent = *p;
> > mem_node = rb_entry(parent, struct mem_cgroup, mem_cgroup_node);
> > @@ -253,6 +255,23 @@ static void mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > rb_insert_color(&mem->mem_cgroup_node,
> > &mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded_groups);
> > mem->last_tree_update = jiffies;
> > + mem->on_tree = true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void __mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > +{
> > + if (!mem->on_tree)
> > + return;
> > + rb_erase(&mem->mem_cgroup_node, &mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded_groups);
> > + mem->on_tree = false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > + __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(mem);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -260,10 +279,34 @@ static void mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > - rb_erase(&mem->mem_cgroup_node, &mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded_groups);
> > + __mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mem);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > +static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_get_largest_soft_limit_exceeding_node(void)
> > +{
> > + struct rb_node *rightmost = NULL;
> > + struct mem_cgroup *mem = NULL;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > + rightmost = rb_last(&mem_cgroup_soft_limit_exceeded_groups);
> > + if (!rightmost)
> > + goto done; /* Nothing to reclaim from */
> > +
> > + mem = rb_entry(rightmost, struct mem_cgroup, mem_cgroup_node);
> > + mem_cgroup_get(mem);
> > + /*
> > + * Remove the node now but someone else can add it back,
> > + * we will to add it back at the end of reclaim to its correct
> > + * position in the tree.
> > + */
> > + __mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mem);
> > +done:
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > + return mem;
> > +}
> > +
>
> Do you remember we discuss about zone reclaim balancing thing
> in "reclaim bail out"thread at about 2 month ago?
>
> The "largest exceeding" policy seems to have similar problems.
> if largest exceeding group is most active,
>
> 1. do the largest group activity and charge memory over softlimit.
> 2. reclaim memory from the largest group.
> 3. goto 1.
>
> then, system can become livelock.
>
What other alternative do you recommend? Reclaiming memory from an
over active group that is over its assigned usage is not a livelock
scenario, do you see it that way?
> I think per-group priority is not good idea.
>
Not sure I understand this part.
>
>
> > static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> > struct page_cgroup *pc,
> > bool charge)
> > @@ -886,7 +929,8 @@ mem_cgroup_select_victim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem)
> > * If shrink==true, for avoiding to free too much, this returns immedieately.
> > */
> > static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
> > - gfp_t gfp_mask, bool noswap, bool shrink)
> > + gfp_t gfp_mask, bool noswap, bool shrink,
> > + bool check_soft)
>
> Now, we get three boolean argument.
> So, can we convert "int flags" argument?
>
> I don't think mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(memcg, GFP_KERNEL, false, true, false) is
> self-described good look.
>
>
> > {
> > struct mem_cgroup *victim;
> > int ret, total = 0;
> > @@ -913,7 +957,11 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
> > if (shrink)
> > return ret;
> > total += ret;
> > - if (mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(root_mem))
> > +
> > + if (check_soft) {
> > + if (res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&root_mem->res))
> > + return 1 + total;
> > + } else if (mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(root_mem))
> > return 1 + total;
>
> I don't understand what's mean "1 +".
>
>
> > }
> > return total;
> > @@ -1044,7 +1092,7 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > goto nomem;
> >
> > ret = mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask,
> > - noswap, false);
> > + noswap, false, false);
> > if (ret)
> > continue;
> >
> > @@ -1686,7 +1734,7 @@ int mem_cgroup_shrink_usage(struct page *page,
> >
> > do {
> > progress = mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(mem,
> > - gfp_mask, true, false);
> > + gfp_mask, true, false, false);
> > progress += mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(mem);
> > } while (!progress && --retry);
> >
> > @@ -1741,7 +1789,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > break;
> >
> > progress = mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(memcg, GFP_KERNEL,
> > - false, true);
> > + false, true, false);
> > curusage = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_USAGE);
> > /* Usage is reduced ? */
> > if (curusage >= oldusage)
> > @@ -1789,7 +1837,8 @@ int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > if (!ret)
> > break;
> >
> > - mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(memcg, GFP_KERNEL, true, true);
> > + mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(memcg, GFP_KERNEL, true, true,
> > + false);
> > curusage = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_USAGE);
> > /* Usage is reduced ? */
> > if (curusage >= oldusage)
> > @@ -1940,6 +1989,38 @@ try_to_free:
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > +unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > + struct mem_cgroup *mem;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + mem = mem_cgroup_get_largest_soft_limit_exceeding_node();
> > + if (!mem)
> > + break;
> > + if (mem_cgroup_is_obsolete(mem)) {
> > + mem_cgroup_put(mem);
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > + nr_reclaimed +=
> > + mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(mem, gfp_mask, false,
> > + false, true);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > + mem->usage_in_excess = res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&mem->res);
> > + /*
> > + * We need to remove and reinsert the node in its correct
> > + * position
> > + */
> > + __mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mem);
> > + if (mem->usage_in_excess)
> > + __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(mem);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg_soft_limit_tree_lock, flags);
> > + mem_cgroup_put(mem);
> > + } while (!nr_reclaimed);
> > + return nr_reclaimed;
> > +}
>
> this function is called from reclaim hotpath. but it grab glocal spin lock..
> I don't like this.
>
>
> > +
> > int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct cgroup *cont, unsigned int event)
> > {
> > return mem_cgroup_force_empty(mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont), true);
> > @@ -2528,6 +2609,8 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont)
> > mem->last_scanned_child = 0;
> > mem->usage_in_excess = 0;
> > mem->last_tree_update = 0; /* Yes, time begins at 0 here */
> > + mem->on_tree = false;
> > +
> > spin_lock_init(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
> >
> > if (parent)
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 7be9386..c50e29b 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1579,7 +1579,15 @@ nofail_alloc:
> > reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
> > p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
> >
> > - did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order, gfp_mask);
> > + did_some_progress = mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(gfp_mask);
> > + /*
> > + * If we made no progress or need higher order allocations
> > + * try_to_free_pages() is still our best bet, since mem_cgroup
> > + * reclaim does not handle freeing pages greater than order 0
> > + */
> > + if (!did_some_progress || order)
> > + did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist, order,
> > + gfp_mask);
> >
> > p->reclaim_state = NULL;
> > p->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
>
> this is very freqently called place. then we want to
> - if no memcgroup using, no performance regression.
> - if no softlimit but using memcg, performance degression is smaller than 1%.
>
> Do you have any performance number?
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
>
--
Balbir
--
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