linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH v3] memcg: fix behavior of per cpu charge cache draining.

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20110610173958.d9ab901c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:39:58 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
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>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	"bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH v3] memcg: fix behavior of per cpu charge cache
 draining.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:12:19 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Thu 09-06-11 09:30:45, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > From 0ebd8a90a91d50c512e7c63e5529a22e44e84c42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:51:11 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH] Fix behavior of per-cpu charge cache draining in memcg.
> > 
> > For performance, memory cgroup caches some "charge" from res_counter
> > into per cpu cache. This works well but because it's cache,
> > it needs to be flushed in some cases. Typical cases are
> > 	1. when someone hit limit.
> > 	2. when rmdir() is called and need to charges to be 0.
> > 
> > But "1" has problem.
> > 
> > Recently, with large SMP machines, we many kworker runs because
> > of flushing memcg's cache. Bad things in implementation are
> > 
> > a) it's called before calling try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> >    so, it's called immidiately when a task hit limit.
> >    (I though it was better to avoid to run into memory reclaim.
> >     But it was wrong decision.)
> > 
> > b) Even if a cpu contains a cache for memcg not related to
> >    a memcg which hits limit, drain code is called.
> > 
> > This patch fixes a) and b) by
> > 
> > A) delay calling of flushing until one run of try_to_free...
> >    Then, the number of calling is decreased.
> > B) check percpu cache contains a useful data or not.
> > plus
> > C) check asynchronous percpu draining doesn't run.
> > 
> > BTW, why this patch relpaces atomic_t counter with mutex is
> > to guarantee a memcg which is pointed by stock->cacne is
> > not destroyed while we check css_id.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > 
> > Changelog:
> >  - fixed typo.
> >  - fixed rcu_read_lock() and add strict mutal execution between
> >    asynchronous and synchronous flushing. It's requred for validness
> >    of cached pointer.
> >  - add root_mem->use_hierarchy check.
> > ---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c |   54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index bd9052a..3baddcb 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> [...]
> >  static struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *
> >  mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int nid, int zid)
> > @@ -1670,8 +1670,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
> >  		victim = mem_cgroup_select_victim(root_mem);
> >  		if (victim == root_mem) {
> >  			loop++;
> > -			if (loop >= 1)
> > -				drain_all_stock_async();
> >  			if (loop >= 2) {
> >  				/*
> >  				 * If we have not been able to reclaim
> > @@ -1723,6 +1721,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
> >  				return total;
> >  		} else if (mem_cgroup_margin(root_mem))
> >  			return total;
> > +		drain_all_stock_async(root_mem);
> >  	}
> >  	return total;
> >  }
> 
> I still think that we pointlessly reclaim even though we could have a
> lot of pages pre-charged in the cache (the more CPUs we have the more
> significant this might be).

The more CPUs, the more scan cost for each per-cpu memory, which makes
cache-miss.

I know placement of drain_all_stock_async() is not big problem on my host,
which has 2socket/8core cpus. But, assuming 1000+ cpu host, 
"when you hit limit, you'll see 1000*128bytes cache miss and need to call test_and_set for 1000+ cpus in bad case." doesn't seem much win.

If we implement "call-drain-only-nearby-cpus", I think we can call it before
calling try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(). I'll add it to my TO-DO-LIST.

How do you think ?

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/