| 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: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:19:36 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] memcg: use generic percpu instead of private
implementation
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:23:05 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2010-02-03 12:16:24]:
>
> > This is a repost. I'll post my test program in reply to this.
> > Updated against mmotm-2010-Feb-01.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Kame
> > ==
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > When per-cpu counter for memcg was implemneted, dynamic percpu allocator
> > was not very good. But now, we have good one and useful macros.
> > This patch replaces memcg's private percpu counter implementation with
> > generic dynamic percpu allocator.
> >
> > The benefits are
> > - We can remove private implementation.
> > - The counters will be NUMA-aware. (Current one is not...)
> > - This patch makes sizeof struct mem_cgroup smaller. Then,
> > struct mem_cgroup may be fit in page size on small config.
> > - About basic performance aspects, see below.
> >
> > [Before]
> > # size mm/memcontrol.o
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 24373 2528 4132 31033 7939 mm/memcontrol.o
> >
> > [page-fault-throuput test on 8cpu/SMP in root cgroup]
> > # /root/bin/perf stat -a -e page-faults,cache-misses --repeat 5 ./multi-fault-fork 8
> >
> > Performance counter stats for './multi-fault-fork 8' (5 runs):
> >
> > 45878618 page-faults ( +- 0.110% )
> > 602635826 cache-misses ( +- 0.105% )
> >
> > 61.005373262 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.004% )
> >
> > Then cache-miss/page fault = 13.14
> >
> > [After]
> > #size mm/memcontrol.o
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 23913 2528 4132 30573 776d mm/memcontrol.o
> > # /root/bin/perf stat -a -e page-faults,cache-misses --repeat 5 ./multi-fault-fork 8
> >
> > Performance counter stats for './multi-fault-fork 8' (5 runs):
> >
> > 48179400 page-faults ( +- 0.271% )
> > 588628407 cache-misses ( +- 0.136% )
> >
> > 61.004615021 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.004% )
> >
> > Then cache-miss/page fault = 12.22
> >
> > Text size is reduced.
> > This performance improvement is not big and will be invisible in real world
> > applications. But this result shows this patch has some good effect even
> > on (small) SMP.
> >
> > Changelog: 2010/02/02
> > - adjusted to mmotm-Feb01.
> > - added performance result to the patch description.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 184 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Feb01/mm/memcontrol.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- mmotm-2.6.33-Feb01.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ mmotm-2.6.33-Feb01/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -89,54 +89,8 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
> >
> > struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> > s64 count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS];
> > -} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> > -
> > -struct mem_cgroup_stat {
> > - struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu cpustat[0];
> > };
> >
> > -static inline void
> > -__mem_cgroup_stat_set_safe(struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat,
> > - enum mem_cgroup_stat_index idx, s64 val)
> > -{
> > - stat->count[idx] = val;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static inline s64
> > -__mem_cgroup_stat_read_local(struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat,
> > - enum mem_cgroup_stat_index idx)
> > -{
> > - return stat->count[idx];
> > -}
> > -
> > -/*
> > - * For accounting under irq disable, no need for increment preempt count.
> > - */
> > -static inline void __mem_cgroup_stat_add_safe(struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat,
> > - enum mem_cgroup_stat_index idx, int val)
> > -{
> > - stat->count[idx] += val;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static s64 mem_cgroup_read_stat(struct mem_cgroup_stat *stat,
> > - enum mem_cgroup_stat_index idx)
> > -{
> > - int cpu;
> > - s64 ret = 0;
> > - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > - ret += stat->cpustat[cpu].count[idx];
> > - return ret;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static s64 mem_cgroup_local_usage(struct mem_cgroup_stat *stat)
> > -{
> > - s64 ret;
> > -
> > - ret = mem_cgroup_read_stat(stat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_CACHE);
> > - ret += mem_cgroup_read_stat(stat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_RSS);
> > - return ret;
> > -}
> > -
> > /*
> > * per-zone information in memory controller.
> > */
> > @@ -270,9 +224,9 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> > unsigned long move_charge_at_immigrate;
> >
> > /*
> > - * statistics. This must be placed at the end of memcg.
> > + * percpu counter.
> > */
> > - struct mem_cgroup_stat stat;
> > + struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *stat;
> > };
> >
> > /* Stuffs for move charges at task migration. */
> > @@ -441,19 +395,14 @@ mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(struct mem_cg
> > static bool mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > {
> > bool ret = false;
> > - int cpu;
> > s64 val;
> > - struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *cpustat;
> >
> > - cpu = get_cpu();
> > - cpustat = &mem->stat.cpustat[cpu];
> > - val = __mem_cgroup_stat_read_local(cpustat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SOFTLIMIT);
> > + val = this_cpu_read(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SOFTLIMIT]);
> > if (unlikely(val < 0)) {
> > - __mem_cgroup_stat_set_safe(cpustat, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SOFTLIMIT,
> > + this_cpu_write(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SOFTLIMIT],
> > SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH);
> > ret = true;
> > }
> > - put_cpu();
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -549,17 +498,31 @@ mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node(struc
> > return mz;
> > }
> >
> > +static s64 mem_cgroup_read_stat(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> > + enum mem_cgroup_stat_index idx)
> > +{
> > + int cpu;
> > + s64 val = 0;
> > +
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>
> Is for_each_possible_cpu() what we need? Is this to avoid CPU hotplug
> events?
>
> Looks good overall, except the question above.
Yes. It's against cpu hotplug. Further improvement is add a cpu hotplug
handler (and merge date to other cpus). But I think it should be another
patch.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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