| 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: <20091005161808.fa5ab0c6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:18:08 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.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>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] memcg: improving scalability by reducing lock
contention at charge/uncharge
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:53:10 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > [After]
> > Performance counter stats for './runpause.sh' (5 runs):
> >
> > 474658.997489 task-clock-msecs # 7.891 CPUs ( +- 0.006% )
> > 10250 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.020% )
> > 11 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
> > 33177858 page-faults # 0.070 M/sec ( +- 0.152% )
> > 1485264748476 cycles # 3129.120 M/sec ( +- 0.021% )
> > 409847004519 instructions # 0.276 IPC ( +- 0.123% )
> > 3237478723 cache-references # 6.821 M/sec ( +- 0.574% )
> > 1182572827 cache-misses # 2.491 M/sec ( +- 0.179% )
> >
> > 60.151786309 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.014% )
> >
> BTW, this is a score in root cgroup.
>
>
> 473811.590852 task-clock-msecs # 7.878 CPUs ( +- 0.006% )
> 10257 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.049% )
> 10 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
> 36418112 page-faults # 0.077 M/sec ( +- 0.195% )
> 1482880352588 cycles # 3129.684 M/sec ( +- 0.011% )
> 410948762898 instructions # 0.277 IPC ( +- 0.123% )
> 3182986911 cache-references # 6.718 M/sec ( +- 0.555% )
> 1147144023 cache-misses # 2.421 M/sec ( +- 0.137% )
>
>
> Then,
> 36418112 x 100 / 33177858 = 109% slower in children cgroup.
>
This is an additional patch now under testing.(just experimental)
result of above test:
==
[root cgroup]
37062405 page-faults # 0.078 M/sec ( +- 0.156% )
[children]
35876894 page-faults # 0.076 M/sec ( +- 0.233% )
==
Near to my target....
This patch adds bulk_css_put() and coalesces css_put() in batched-uncharge path.
avoidng frequent calls css_put().
coalescing-uncharge patch, it reduces reference to res_counter
but css_put() per page is still called.
Of course, we can coalesce prural css_put() to a call of bulk_css_put().
This patch adds bulk_css_put() and reduces false-sharing and will have
good effects in scalability.
Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
---
include/linux/cgroup.h | 10 ++++++++--
kernel/cgroup.c | 5 ++---
mm/memcontrol.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28/include/linux/cgroup.h
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28.orig/include/linux/cgroup.h
+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28/include/linux/cgroup.h
@@ -117,11 +117,17 @@ static inline bool css_tryget(struct cgr
* css_get() or css_tryget()
*/
-extern void __css_put(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css);
+extern void __css_put(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, int val);
static inline void css_put(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
{
if (!test_bit(CSS_ROOT, &css->flags))
- __css_put(css);
+ __css_put(css, 1);
+}
+
+static inline void bulk_css_put(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, int val)
+{
+ if (!test_bit(CSS_ROOT, &css->flags))
+ __css_put(css, val);
}
/* bits in struct cgroup flags field */
Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28/kernel/cgroup.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28.orig/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -3705,12 +3705,11 @@ static void check_for_release(struct cgr
}
}
-void __css_put(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
+void __css_put(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, int val)
{
struct cgroup *cgrp = css->cgroup;
- int val;
rcu_read_lock();
- val = atomic_dec_return(&css->refcnt);
+ val = atomic_sub_return(val, &css->refcnt);
if (val == 1) {
if (notify_on_release(cgrp)) {
set_bit(CGRP_RELEASABLE, &cgrp->flags);
Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28/mm/memcontrol.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Sep28/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1977,8 +1977,14 @@ __do_uncharge(struct mem_cgroup *mem, co
return;
direct_uncharge:
res_counter_uncharge(&mem->res, PAGE_SIZE);
- if (uncharge_memsw)
+ if (uncharge_memsw) {
res_counter_uncharge(&mem->memsw, PAGE_SIZE);
+ /*
+ * swapout-uncharge do css_put() by itself. then we do
+ * css_put() only in this case.
+ */
+ css_put(&mem->css);
+ }
return;
}
@@ -2048,9 +2054,6 @@ __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common(struct page
if (mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check(mem))
mem_cgroup_update_tree(mem, page);
- /* at swapout, this memcg will be accessed to record to swap */
- if (ctype != MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_SWAPOUT)
- css_put(&mem->css);
return mem;
@@ -2108,8 +2111,11 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_end(void)
if (!mem)
return;
/* This "mem" is valid bacause we hide charges behind us. */
- if (current->memcg_batch.pages)
+ if (current->memcg_batch.pages) {
res_counter_uncharge(&mem->res, current->memcg_batch.pages);
+ bulk_css_put(&mem->css,
+ current->memcg_batch.pages >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+ }
if (current->memcg_batch.memsw)
res_counter_uncharge(&mem->memsw, current->memcg_batch.memsw);
/* Not necessary. but forget this pointer */
--
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