| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090407022656.GM7082@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:56:56 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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>,
"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/9] soft limit update filter
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-04-07 09:04:38]:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:13:51 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-04-03 17:12:02]:
> >
> > > No changes from v1.
> > > ==
> > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > >
> > > Check/Update softlimit information at every charge is over-killing, so
> > > we need some filter.
> > >
> > > This patch tries to count events in the memcg and if events > threshold
> > > tries to update memcg's soft limit status and reset event counter to 0.
> > >
> > > Event counter is maintained by per-cpu which has been already used,
> > > Then, no siginificant overhead(extra cache-miss etc..) in theory.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > > ---
> > > Index: mmotm-2.6.29-Mar23/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- mmotm-2.6.29-Mar23.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ mmotm-2.6.29-Mar23/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
> > > MEM_CGROUP_STAT_PGPGIN_COUNT, /* # of pages paged in */
> > > MEM_CGROUP_STAT_PGPGOUT_COUNT, /* # of pages paged out */
> > >
> > > + MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS, /* sum of page-in/page-out for internal use */
> > > MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -105,6 +106,22 @@ static s64 mem_cgroup_local_usage(struct
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/* For intenal use of per-cpu event counting. */
> > > +
> > > +static inline void
> > > +__mem_cgroup_stat_reset_safe(struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat,
> > > + enum mem_cgroup_stat_index idx)
> > > +{
> > > + stat->count[idx] = 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > Why do we do this and why do we need a special event?
> >
> 2 points.
>
> 1. we do "reset" this counter.
> 2. We're counting page-in/page-out. I wonder I should counter others...
>
> > > +
> > > +static inline s64
> > > +__mem_cgroup_stat_read_local(struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat,
> > > + enum mem_cgroup_stat_index idx)
> > > +{
> > > + return stat->count[idx];
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * per-zone information in memory controller.
> > > */
> > > @@ -235,6 +252,8 @@ static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics
> > > else
> > > __mem_cgroup_stat_add_safe(cpustat,
> > > MEM_CGROUP_STAT_PGPGOUT_COUNT, 1);
> > > + __mem_cgroup_stat_add_safe(cpustat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS, 1);
> > > +
> > > put_cpu();
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -897,9 +916,26 @@ static void record_last_oom(struct mem_c
> > > mem_cgroup_walk_tree(mem, NULL, record_last_oom_cb);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#define SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH (1024) /* 1024 times of page-in/out */
> > > +/*
> > > + * Returns true if sum of page-in/page-out events since last check is
> > > + * over SOFTLIMIT_EVENT_THRESH. (counter is per-cpu.)
> > > + */
> > > static bool mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > > {
> > > - return false;
> > > + bool ret = false;
> > > + int cpu = get_cpu();
> > > + s64 val;
> > > + struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *cpustat;
> > > +
> > > + cpustat = &mem->stat.cpustat[cpu];
> > > + val = __mem_cgroup_stat_read_local(cpustat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS);
> > > + if (unlikely(val > SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH)) {
> > > + __mem_cgroup_stat_reset_safe(cpustat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS);
> > > + ret = true;
> > > + }
> > > + put_cpu();
> > > + return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > It is good to have the caller and the function in the same patch.
> > Otherwise, you'll notice unused warnings. I think this function can be
> > simplified further
> >
> > 1. Lets gid rid of MEM_CGRUP_STAT_EVENTS
> > 2. Lets rewrite mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check as
> >
> > static bool mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > {
> > bool ret = false;
> > int cpu = get_cpu();
> > s64 pgin, pgout;
> > struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *cpustat;
> >
> > cpustat = &mem->stat.cpustat[cpu];
> > pgin = __mem_cgroup_stat_read_local(cpustat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_PGPGIN_COUNT);
> > pgout = __mem_cgroup_stat_read_local(cpustat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_PGPGOUT_COUNT);
> > val = pgin + pgout - mem->last_event_count;
> > if (unlikely(val > SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH)) {
> > mem->last_event_count = pgin + pgout;
> > ret = true;
> > }
> > put_cpu();
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > mem->last_event_count can either be atomic or protected using one of
> > the locks you intend to introduce. This will avoid the overhead of
> > incrementing event at every charge_statistics.
> >
> Incrementing always hits cache.
>
> Hmm, making mem->last_event_count as per-cpu, we can do above. And maybe no
> difference with current code. But you don't seem to like counting,
> it's ok to change the shape.
>
I was wondering as to why we were adding another EVENT counter, when
we can sum up pgpgin and pgpgout, but we already have the
infrastructure to make EVENT per-cpu, so lets stick with it for now.
--
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