[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p2k49b004811004140922v8b6c4c57j2dd435261ff2dd43@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:22:41 -0700
From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
"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
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 1/5] memcg: disable irq at page cgroup lock
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:29 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:55:12 -0700
> Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:10:39 +0530
>> > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2010-03-19 10:23:32]:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0530
>> >> > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2010-03-18 13:35:27]:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > Then, no probelm. It's ok to add mem_cgroup_udpate_stat() indpendent from
>> >> > > > mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(). The look may be messy but it's not your
>> >> > > > fault. But please write "why add new function" to patch description.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I'm sorry for wasting your time.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Do we need to go down this route? We could check the stat and do the
>> >> > > correct thing. In case of FILE_MAPPED, always grab page_cgroup_lock
>> >> > > and for others potentially look at trylock. It is OK for different
>> >> > > stats to be protected via different locks.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > I _don't_ want to see a mixture of spinlock and trylock in a function.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> A well documented well written function can help. The other thing is to
>> >> of-course solve this correctly by introducing different locking around
>> >> the statistics. Are you suggesting the later?
>> >>
>> >
>> > No. As I wrote.
>> > - don't modify codes around FILE_MAPPED in this series.
>> > - add a new functions for new statistics
>> > Then,
>> > - think about clean up later, after we confirm all things work as expected.
>>
>> I have ported Andrea Righi's memcg dirty page accounting patches to latest
>> mmtom-2010-04-05-16-09. In doing so I have to address this locking issue. Does
>> the following look good? I will (of course) submit the entire patch for review,
>> but I wanted make sure I was aiming in the right direction.
>>
>> void mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(struct page *page,
>> enum mem_cgroup_write_page_stat_item idx, bool charge)
>> {
>> static int seq;
>> struct page_cgroup *pc;
>>
>> if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
>> return;
>> pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
>> if (!pc || mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup))
>> return;
>>
>> /*
>> * This routine does not disable irq when updating stats. So it is
>> * possible that a stat update from within interrupt routine, could
>> * deadlock. Use trylock_page_cgroup() to avoid such deadlock. This
>> * makes the memcg counters fuzzy. More complicated, or lower
>> * performing locking solutions avoid this fuzziness, but are not
>> * currently needed.
>> */
>> if (irqs_disabled()) {
>> if (! trylock_page_cgroup(pc))
>> return;
>> } else
>> lock_page_cgroup(pc);
>>
>
> I prefer trylock_page_cgroup() always.
What is your reason for preferring trylock_page_cgroup()? I assume
it's for code simplicity, but I wanted to check.
I had though about using trylock_page_cgroup() always, but I think
that would make file_mapped accounting even more fuzzy that it already
it is. I was trying to retain the current accuracy of file_mapped and
only make new counters, like writeback/dirty/etc (those obtained in
interrupt), fuzzy.
> I have another idea fixing this up _later_. (But I want to start from simple one.)
>
> My rough idea is following. Similar to your idea which you gave me before.
Hi Kame-san,
I like the general approach. The code I previously gave you appears
to work and is faster than non-root memcgs using mmotm due to mostly
being lockless.
> ==
> DEFINE_PERCPU(account_move_ongoing);
What's the reason for having a per-cpu account_move_ongoing flag?
Would a single system-wide global be sufficient? I assume the
majority of the time this value will not be changing because
accounting moves are rare.
Perhaps all of the per-cpu variables are packed within a per-cpu
cacheline making accessing it more likely to be local, but I'm not
sure if this is true.
--
Greg
--
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