| 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: <CALWz4iyXbrgcrZEOsgvvW9mu6fr7Qwbn2d1FR_BVw6R_pMZPsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:05:51 -0700
From: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Andrew Brestic <abrestic@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Revert "memcg: add memory.vmscan_stat"
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 04:20:50PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:04:24 +0200
>> Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:12:33AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> > > @@ -1710,11 +1711,18 @@ static void mem_cgroup_record_scanstat(s
>> > > spin_lock(&memcg->scanstat.lock);
>> > > __mem_cgroup_record_scanstat(memcg->scanstat.stats[context], rec);
>> > > spin_unlock(&memcg->scanstat.lock);
>> > > -
>> > > - memcg = rec->root;
>> > > - spin_lock(&memcg->scanstat.lock);
>> > > - __mem_cgroup_record_scanstat(memcg->scanstat.rootstats[context], rec);
>> > > - spin_unlock(&memcg->scanstat.lock);
>> > > + cgroup = memcg->css.cgroup;
>> > > + do {
>> > > + spin_lock(&memcg->scanstat.lock);
>> > > + __mem_cgroup_record_scanstat(
>> > > + memcg->scanstat.hierarchy_stats[context], rec);
>> > > + spin_unlock(&memcg->scanstat.lock);
>> > > + if (!cgroup->parent)
>> > > + break;
>> > > + cgroup = cgroup->parent;
>> > > + memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgroup);
>> > > + } while (memcg->use_hierarchy && memcg != rec->root);
>> >
>> > Okay, so this looks correct, but it sums up all parents after each
>> > memcg scanned, which could have a performance impact. Usually,
>> > hierarchy statistics are only summed up when a user reads them.
>> >
>> Hmm. But sum-at-read doesn't work.
>>
>> Assume 3 cgroups in a hierarchy.
>>
>> A
>> /
>> B
>> /
>> C
>>
>> C's scan contains 3 causes.
>> C's scan caused by limit of A.
>> C's scan caused by limit of B.
>> C's scan caused by limit of C.
>>
>> If we make hierarchy sum at read, we think
>> B's scan_stat = B's scan_stat + C's scan_stat
>> But in precice, this is
>>
>> B's scan_stat = B's scan_stat caused by B +
>> B's scan_stat caused by A +
>> C's scan_stat caused by C +
>> C's scan_stat caused by B +
>> C's scan_stat caused by A.
>>
>> In orignal version.
>> B's scan_stat = B's scan_stat caused by B +
>> C's scan_stat caused by B +
>>
>> After this patch,
>> B's scan_stat = B's scan_stat caused by B +
>> B's scan_stat caused by A +
>> C's scan_stat caused by C +
>> C's scan_stat caused by B +
>> C's scan_stat caused by A.
>>
>> Hmm...removing hierarchy part completely seems fine to me.
>
> I see.
>
> You want to look at A and see whether its limit was responsible for
> reclaim scans in any children. IMO, that is asking the question
> backwards. Instead, there is a cgroup under reclaim and one wants to
> find out the cause for that. Not the other way round.
>
> In my original proposal I suggested differentiating reclaim caused by
> internal pressure (due to own limit) and reclaim caused by
> external/hierarchical pressure (due to limits from parents).
>
> If you want to find out why C is under reclaim, look at its reclaim
> statistics. If the _limit numbers are high, C's limit is the problem.
> If the _hierarchical numbers are high, the problem is B, A, or
> physical memory, so you check B for _limit and _hierarchical as well,
> then move on to A.
>
> Implementing this would be as easy as passing not only the memcg to
> scan (victim) to the reclaim code, but also the memcg /causing/ the
> reclaim (root_mem):
>
> root_mem == victim -> account to victim as _limit
> root_mem != victim -> account to victim as _hierarchical
>
> This would make things much simpler and more natural, both the code
> and the way of tracking down a problem, IMO.
This is pretty much the stats I am currently using for debugging the
reclaim patches. For example:
scanned_pages_by_system 0
scanned_pages_by_system_under_hierarchy 50989
scanned_pages_by_limit 0
scanned_pages_by_limit_under_hierarchy 0
"_system" is count under global reclaim, and "_limit" is count under
per-memcg reclaim.
"_under_hiearchy" is set if memcg is not the one triggering pressure.
So in the previous example:
> A (root)
> /
> B
> /
> C
For cgroup C:
scanned_pages_by_system:
scanned_pages_by_system_under_hierarchy: # of pages scanned under
global memory pressure
scanned_pages_by_limit: # of pages scanned while C hits the limit
scanned_pages_by_limit_under_hierarchy: # of pages scanned while B
hits the limit
--Ying
>
>> > I don't get why this has to be done completely different from the way
>> > we usually do things, without any justification, whatsoever.
>> >
>> > Why do you want to pass a recording structure down the reclaim stack?
>>
>> Just for reducing number of passed variables.
>
> It's still sitting on bottom of the reclaim stack the whole time.
>
> With my proposal, you would only need to pass the extra root_mem
> pointer.
>
--
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