| 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: <20100302221434.GB2369@linux>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:14:34 +0100
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 3/3] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:48:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 22:23 +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Apply the cgroup dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure to
> > the opportune kernel functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
> > ---
>
> > diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > index 5a0f8f3..d83f41c 100644
> > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> > +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > @@ -137,13 +137,14 @@ static struct prop_descriptor vm_dirties;
> > */
> > static int calc_period_shift(void)
> > {
> > - unsigned long dirty_total;
> > + unsigned long dirty_total, dirty_bytes;
> >
> > - if (vm_dirty_bytes)
> > - dirty_total = vm_dirty_bytes / PAGE_SIZE;
> > + dirty_bytes = mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes();
> > + if (dirty_bytes)
>
> So you don't think 0 is a valid max dirty amount?
A value of 0 means "disabled". It's used to select between dirty_ratio
or dirty_bytes. It's the same for the gloabl vm_dirty_* parameters.
>
> > + dirty_total = dirty_bytes / PAGE_SIZE;
> > else
> > - dirty_total = (vm_dirty_ratio * determine_dirtyable_memory()) /
> > - 100;
> > + dirty_total = (mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio() *
> > + determine_dirtyable_memory()) / 100;
> > return 2 + ilog2(dirty_total - 1);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -408,14 +409,16 @@ static unsigned long highmem_dirtyable_memory(unsigned long total)
> > */
> > unsigned long determine_dirtyable_memory(void)
> > {
> > - unsigned long x;
> > -
> > - x = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) + global_reclaimable_pages();
> > + unsigned long memory;
> > + s64 memcg_memory;
> >
> > + memory = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) + global_reclaimable_pages();
> > if (!vm_highmem_is_dirtyable)
> > - x -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(x);
> > -
> > - return x + 1; /* Ensure that we never return 0 */
> > + memory -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(memory);
> > + memcg_memory = mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_DIRTYABLE_PAGES);
> > + if (memcg_memory < 0)
>
> And here you somehow return negative?
>
> > + return memory + 1;
> > + return min((unsigned long)memcg_memory, memory + 1);
> > }
> >
> > void
> > @@ -423,26 +426,28 @@ get_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty,
> > unsigned long *pbdi_dirty, struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> > {
> > unsigned long background;
> > - unsigned long dirty;
> > + unsigned long dirty, dirty_bytes, dirty_background;
> > unsigned long available_memory = determine_dirtyable_memory();
> > struct task_struct *tsk;
> >
> > - if (vm_dirty_bytes)
> > - dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(vm_dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> > + dirty_bytes = mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes();
> > + if (dirty_bytes)
>
> zero not valid again
>
> > + dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> > else {
> > int dirty_ratio;
> >
> > - dirty_ratio = vm_dirty_ratio;
> > + dirty_ratio = mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio();
> > if (dirty_ratio < 5)
> > dirty_ratio = 5;
> > dirty = (dirty_ratio * available_memory) / 100;
> > }
> >
> > - if (dirty_background_bytes)
> > - background = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_background_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> > + dirty_background = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes();
> > + if (dirty_background)
>
> idem
>
> > + background = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_background, PAGE_SIZE);
> > else
> > - background = (dirty_background_ratio * available_memory) / 100;
> > -
> > + background = (mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio() *
> > + available_memory) / 100;
> > if (background >= dirty)
> > background = dirty / 2;
> > tsk = current;
> > @@ -508,9 +513,13 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh,
> > &bdi_thresh, bdi);
> >
> > - nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > + nr_reclaimable = mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES);
> > + nr_writeback = mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_WRITEBACK);
> > + if ((nr_reclaimable < 0) || (nr_writeback < 0)) {
> > + nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
>
> ??? why would a page_state be negative.. I see you return -ENOMEM on !
> cgroup, but how can one specify no dirty limit with this compiled in?
>
> > - nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> > + nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> > + }
> >
> > bdi_nr_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_DIRTY);
> > if (bdi_cap_account_unstable(bdi)) {
> > @@ -611,10 +620,12 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > * In normal mode, we start background writeout at the lower
> > * background_thresh, to keep the amount of dirty memory low.
> > */
> > + nr_reclaimable = mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES);
> > + if (nr_reclaimable < 0)
> > + nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > + global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
>
> Again..
>
> > if ((laptop_mode && pages_written) ||
> > - (!laptop_mode && ((global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY)
> > - + global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS))
> > - > background_thresh)))
> > + (!laptop_mode && (nr_reclaimable > background_thresh)))
> > bdi_start_writeback(bdi, NULL, 0);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -678,6 +689,8 @@ void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > unsigned long dirty_thresh;
> >
> > for ( ; ; ) {
> > + unsigned long dirty;
> > +
> > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, NULL, NULL);
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -686,10 +699,14 @@ void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > */
> > dirty_thresh += dirty_thresh / 10; /* wheeee... */
> >
> > - if (global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) +
> > - global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) <= dirty_thresh)
> > - break;
> > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > +
> > + dirty = mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_DIRTY_WRITEBACK_PAGES);
> > + if (dirty < 0)
> > + dirty = global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) +
> > + global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
>
> and again..
>
> > + if (dirty <= dirty_thresh)
> > + break;
> > + congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> >
> > /*
> > * The caller might hold locks which can prevent IO completion
>
> This is ugly and broken.. I thought you'd agreed to something like:
>
> if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(cgroup))
> use mem_cgroup numbers
> else
> use global numbers
I agree mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit() is nicer. But we must do that under
RCU, so something like:
rcu_read_lock();
if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit())
mem_cgroup_get_page_stat()
else
global_page_state()
rcu_read_unlock();
That is bad when mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit() always returns false
(e.g., when memory cgroups are disabled). So I fallback to the old
interface.
What do you think about:
mem_cgroup_lock();
if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit())
mem_cgroup_get_page_stat()
else
global_page_state()
mem_cgroup_unlock();
Where mem_cgroup_read_lock/unlock() simply expand to nothing when
memory cgroups are disabled.
>
> That allows for a 0 dirty limit (which should work and basically makes
> all io synchronous).
IMHO it is better to reserve 0 for the special value "disabled" like the
global settings. A synchronous IO can be also achieved using a dirty
limit of 1.
>
> Also, I'd put each of those in a separate function, like:
>
> unsigned long reclaimable_pages(cgroup)
> {
> if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(cgroup))
> return mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES);
>
> return global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) + global_page_state(NR_NFS_UNSTABLE);
> }
Agreed.
>
> Which raises another question, you should probably rebase on top of
> Trond's patches, which removes BDI_RECLAIMABLE, suggesting you also
> loose MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES in favour of the DIRTY+UNSTABLE split.
OK, will look at Trond's work.
Thanks,
-Andrea
--
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