| 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: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:11:09 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: avoiding unnecessary get_page at
move_charge
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC'ed to Mel and Chrisotph, KOSAKi because I wanted to be double-cheked
that I miss something important at isolate_lru_page().
Checking perofrmance of memcg's move_account with perf, you may notice
that put_page() is too much.
#
# Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
# ........ ....... ................. .....................................
#
14.24% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] put_page
12.80% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_lru_page
9.67% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] is_target_pte_for_mc
8.11% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ____pagevec_lru_add
7.22% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] putback_lru_page
This is because mc_handle_present_pte() do get_page(). Then,
page->count is updated 4 times.
get_page_unless_zero() #1
isolate_lru_page()
putback_lru_page()
put_page()
But above is called all under pte_offset_map_lock().
get_page_unless_zero() #1 is not necessary because we do all under a
pte_offset_map_lock().
isolate_lru_page()'s comment says
# Restrictions:
# (1) Must be called with an elevated refcount on the page. This is a
# fundamentnal difference from isolate_lru_pages (which is called
# without a stable reference).
So, current implemnation does get_page_unless_zero() explicitly but
holding pte_lock() implies a stable reference. I removed #1.
Then, Performance will be
[Before Patch]
[root@...extal kamezawa]# time echo 2530 > /cgroup/B/tasks
real 0m0.792s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.780s
[After Patch]
[root@...extal kamezawa]# time echo 2257 > /cgroup/B/tasks
real 0m0.694s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.683s
perf's log is
10.82% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_lru_page
10.01% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mem_cgroup_move_account
8.75% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] is_target_pte_for_mc
8.52% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ____pagevec_lru_add
6.90% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] putback_lru_page
6.36% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mem_cgroup_add_lru_list
6.22% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mem_cgroup_del_lru_list
5.68% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] lookup_page_cgroup
5.28% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __lru_cache_add
5.00% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] release_pages
3.79% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irq
3.52% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcg_check_events
3.38% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] bit_spin_lock
3.25% echo [kernel.kallsyms] [k] put_page
seems nice. I updated isolate_lru_page()'s comment, too.
# Note: isolate_lru_page() is necessary before account move for avoinding
memcg's LRU manipulation.
Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
mm/vmscan.c | 3 +-
2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
Index: mmotm-1013/mm/memcontrol.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-1013.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ mmotm-1013/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1169,7 +1169,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_end_move(struct m
* under hierarchy of moving cgroups. This is for
* waiting at hith-memory prressure caused by "move".
*/
-
static bool mem_cgroup_stealed(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
{
VM_BUG_ON(!rcu_read_lock_held());
@@ -4471,11 +4470,14 @@ one_by_one:
* Returns
* 0(MC_TARGET_NONE): if the pte is not a target for move charge.
* 1(MC_TARGET_PAGE): if the page corresponding to this pte is a target for
- * move charge. if @target is not NULL, the page is stored in target->page
- * with extra refcnt got(Callers should handle it).
+ * move charge and it's mapped.. if @target is not NULL, the page is
+ * stored in target->pagewithout extra refcnt.
* 2(MC_TARGET_SWAP): if the swap entry corresponding to this pte is a
* target for charge migration. if @target is not NULL, the entry is stored
* in target->ent.
+ * 3(MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE): if the page corresponding to this pte is a
+ * target for move charge. if @target is not NULL, the page is stored in
+ * target->page with extra refcnt got(Callers should handle it).
*
* Called with pte lock held.
*/
@@ -4486,8 +4488,9 @@ union mc_target {
enum mc_target_type {
MC_TARGET_NONE, /* not used */
- MC_TARGET_PAGE,
+ MC_TARGET_PAGE, /* a page mapped */
MC_TARGET_SWAP,
+ MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE, /* a page unmapped */
};
static struct page *mc_handle_present_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
@@ -4504,9 +4507,10 @@ static struct page *mc_handle_present_pt
} else if (!move_file())
/* we ignore mapcount for file pages */
return NULL;
- if (!get_page_unless_zero(page))
- return NULL;
-
+ /*
+ * Because we're under pte_lock and the page is mapped,
+ * get_page() isn't necessary
+ */
return page;
}
@@ -4570,14 +4574,18 @@ static int is_target_pte_for_mc(struct v
struct page *page = NULL;
struct page_cgroup *pc;
int ret = 0;
+ bool present = true;
swp_entry_t ent = { .val = 0 };
if (pte_present(ptent))
page = mc_handle_present_pte(vma, addr, ptent);
- else if (is_swap_pte(ptent))
- page = mc_handle_swap_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
- else if (pte_none(ptent) || pte_file(ptent))
- page = mc_handle_file_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
+ else {
+ present = false;
+ if (is_swap_pte(ptent))
+ page = mc_handle_swap_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
+ else if (pte_none(ptent) || pte_file(ptent))
+ page = mc_handle_file_pte(vma, addr, ptent, &ent);
+ }
if (!page && !ent.val)
return 0;
@@ -4589,11 +4597,15 @@ static int is_target_pte_for_mc(struct v
* the lock.
*/
if (PageCgroupUsed(pc) && pc->mem_cgroup == mc.from) {
- ret = MC_TARGET_PAGE;
+ if (present)
+ ret = MC_TARGET_PAGE;
+ else
+ ret = MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE;
if (target)
target->page = page;
}
- if (!ret || !target)
+ /* We got refcnt but the page is not for target */
+ if (!present && (!ret || !target))
put_page(page);
}
/* There is a swap entry and a page doesn't exist or isn't charged */
@@ -4780,19 +4792,24 @@ retry:
type = is_target_pte_for_mc(vma, addr, ptent, &target);
switch (type) {
case MC_TARGET_PAGE:
+ case MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE:
page = target.page;
- if (isolate_lru_page(page))
- goto put;
- pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
- if (!mem_cgroup_move_account(pc,
+ if (!isolate_lru_page(page)) {
+ pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
+ if (!mem_cgroup_move_account(pc,
mc.from, mc.to, false)) {
- mc.precharge--;
- /* we uncharge from mc.from later. */
- mc.moved_charge++;
+ mc.precharge--;
+ /* we uncharge from mc.from later. */
+ mc.moved_charge++;
+ }
+ putback_lru_page(page);
}
- putback_lru_page(page);
-put: /* is_target_pte_for_mc() gets the page */
- put_page(page);
+ /*
+ * Because we holds pte_lock, we have a stable reference * to the page if mapped. If not mapped, we have an
+ * elevated refcnt. drop it.
+ */
+ if (type == MC_TARGET_UNMAPPED_PAGE)
+ put_page(page);
break;
case MC_TARGET_SWAP:
ent = target.ent;
Index: mmotm-1013/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- mmotm-1013.orig/mm/vmscan.c
+++ mmotm-1013/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1166,7 +1166,8 @@ static unsigned long clear_active_flags(
* found will be decremented.
*
* Restrictions:
- * (1) Must be called with an elevated refcount on the page. This is a
+ * (1) Must be called with an elevated refcount on the page, IOW, the
+ * caller must guarantee that there is a stable reference. This is a
* fundamentnal difference from isolate_lru_pages (which is called
* without a stable reference).
* (2) the lru_lock must not be held.
--
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