Message-ID: <20110912223746.GA20765@shutemov.name>
Date:	Tue, 13 Sep 2011 01:37:46 +0300
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 01/11] mm: memcg: consolidate hierarchy iteration
 primitives

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:57:18PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Memory control groups are currently bolted onto the side of
> traditional memory management in places where better integration would
> be preferrable.  To reclaim memory, for example, memory control groups
> maintain their own LRU list and reclaim strategy aside from the global
> per-zone LRU list reclaim.  But an extra list head for each existing
> page frame is expensive and maintaining it requires additional code.
> 
> This patchset disables the global per-zone LRU lists on memory cgroup
> configurations and converts all its users to operate on the per-memory
> cgroup lists instead.  As LRU pages are then exclusively on one list,
> this saves two list pointers for each page frame in the system:
> 
> page_cgroup array size with 4G physical memory
> 
>   vanilla: [    0.000000] allocated 31457280 bytes of page_cgroup
>   patched: [    0.000000] allocated 15728640 bytes of page_cgroup
> 
> At the same time, system performance for various workloads is
> unaffected:
> 
> 100G sparse file cat, 4G physical memory, 10 runs, to test for code
> bloat in the traditional LRU handling and kswapd & direct reclaim
> paths, without/with the memory controller configured in
> 
>   vanilla: 71.603(0.207) seconds
>   patched: 71.640(0.156) seconds
> 
>   vanilla: 79.558(0.288) seconds
>   patched: 77.233(0.147) seconds
> 
> 100G sparse file cat in 1G memory cgroup, 10 runs, to test for code
> bloat in the traditional memory cgroup LRU handling and reclaim path
> 
>   vanilla: 96.844(0.281) seconds
>   patched: 94.454(0.311) seconds
> 
> 4 unlimited memcgs running kbuild -j32 each, 4G physical memory, 500M
> swap on SSD, 10 runs, to test for regressions in kswapd & direct
> reclaim using per-memcg LRU lists with multiple memcgs and multiple
> allocators within each memcg
> 
>   vanilla: 717.722(1.440) seconds [ 69720.100(11600.835) majfaults ]
>   patched: 714.106(2.313) seconds [ 71109.300(14886.186) majfaults ]
> 
> 16 unlimited memcgs running kbuild, 1900M hierarchical limit, 500M
> swap on SSD, 10 runs, to test for regressions in hierarchical memcg
> setups
> 
>   vanilla: 2742.058(1.992) seconds [ 26479.600(1736.737) majfaults ]
>   patched: 2743.267(1.214) seconds [ 27240.700(1076.063) majfaults ]
> 
> This patch:
> 
> There are currently two different implementations of iterating over a
> memory cgroup hierarchy tree.
> 
> Consolidate them into one worker function and base the convenience
> looping-macros on top of it.

Looks nice!

Few comments below.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c |  196 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index b76011a..912c7c7 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -781,83 +781,75 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  	return memcg;
>  }
>  
> -/* The caller has to guarantee "mem" exists before calling this */
> -static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_start_loop(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> +					  struct mem_cgroup *prev,
> +					  bool remember)
>  {
> -	struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> -	int found;
> +	struct mem_cgroup *mem = NULL;
> +	int id = 0;
>  
> -	if (!memcg) /* ROOT cgroup has the smallest ID */
> -		return root_mem_cgroup; /*css_put/get against root is ignored*/
> -	if (!memcg->use_hierarchy) {
> -		if (css_tryget(&memcg->css))
> -			return memcg;
> -		return NULL;
> -	}
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	/*
> -	 * searching a memory cgroup which has the smallest ID under given
> -	 * ROOT cgroup. (ID >= 1)
> -	 */
> -	css = css_get_next(&mem_cgroup_subsys, 1, &memcg->css, &found);
> -	if (css && css_tryget(css))
> -		memcg = container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);
> -	else
> -		memcg = NULL;
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
> -	return memcg;
> -}
> +	if (!root)
> +		root = root_mem_cgroup;
>  
> -static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_get_next(struct mem_cgroup *iter,
> -					struct mem_cgroup *root,
> -					bool cond)
> -{
> -	int nextid = css_id(&iter->css) + 1;
> -	int found;
> -	int hierarchy_used;
> -	struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> +	if (prev && !remember)
> +		id = css_id(&prev->css);
>  
> -	hierarchy_used = iter->use_hierarchy;
> +	if (prev && prev != root)
> +		css_put(&prev->css);
>  
> -	css_put(&iter->css);
> -	/* If no ROOT, walk all, ignore hierarchy */
> -	if (!cond || (root && !hierarchy_used))
> -		return NULL;
> +	if (!root->use_hierarchy && root != root_mem_cgroup) {
> +		if (prev)
> +			return NULL;
> +		return root;
> +	}
>  
> -	if (!root)
> -		root = root_mem_cgroup;
> +	while (!mem) {
> +		struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>  
> -	do {
> -		iter = NULL;
> -		rcu_read_lock();
> +		if (remember)
> +			id = root->last_scanned_child;
>  
> -		css = css_get_next(&mem_cgroup_subsys, nextid,
> -				&root->css, &found);
> -		if (css && css_tryget(css))
> -			iter = container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);
> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +		css = css_get_next(&mem_cgroup_subsys, id + 1, &root->css, &id);
> +		if (css) {
> +			if (css == &root->css || css_tryget(css))

When does css != &root->css here?

> +				mem = container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);
> +		} else
> +			id = 0;
>  		rcu_read_unlock();
> -		/* If css is NULL, no more cgroups will be found */
> -		nextid = found + 1;
> -	} while (css && !iter);
>  
> -	return iter;
> +		if (remember)
> +			root->last_scanned_child = id;
> +
> +		if (prev && !css)
> +			return NULL;
> +	}
> +	return mem;
>  }
> -/*
> - * for_eacn_mem_cgroup_tree() for visiting all cgroup under tree. Please
> - * be careful that "break" loop is not allowed. We have reference count.
> - * Instead of that modify "cond" to be false and "continue" to exit the loop.
> - */
> -#define for_each_mem_cgroup_tree_cond(iter, root, cond)	\
> -	for (iter = mem_cgroup_start_loop(root);\
> -	     iter != NULL;\
> -	     iter = mem_cgroup_get_next(iter, root, cond))
>  
> -#define for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, root) \
> -	for_each_mem_cgroup_tree_cond(iter, root, true)
> +static void mem_cgroup_iter_break(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> +				  struct mem_cgroup *prev)
> +{
> +	if (!root)
> +		root = root_mem_cgroup;
> +	if (prev && prev != root)
> +		css_put(&prev->css);
> +}
>  
> -#define for_each_mem_cgroup_all(iter) \
> -	for_each_mem_cgroup_tree_cond(iter, NULL, true)
> +/*
> + * Iteration constructs for visiting all cgroups (under a tree).  If
> + * loops are exited prematurely (break), mem_cgroup_iter_break() must
> + * be used for reference counting.
> + */
> +#define for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, root)		\
> +	for (iter = mem_cgroup_iter(root, NULL, false);	\
> +	     iter != NULL;				\
> +	     iter = mem_cgroup_iter(root, iter, false))
>  
> +#define for_each_mem_cgroup(iter)			\
> +	for (iter = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, false);	\
> +	     iter != NULL;				\
> +	     iter = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, iter, false))
>  
>  static inline bool mem_cgroup_is_root(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  {
> @@ -1464,43 +1456,6 @@ u64 mem_cgroup_get_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  	return min(limit, memsw);
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * Visit the first child (need not be the first child as per the ordering
> - * of the cgroup list, since we track last_scanned_child) of @mem and use
> - * that to reclaim free pages from.
> - */
> -static struct mem_cgroup *
> -mem_cgroup_select_victim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
> -{
> -	struct mem_cgroup *ret = NULL;
> -	struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> -	int nextid, found;
> -
> -	if (!root_memcg->use_hierarchy) {
> -		css_get(&root_memcg->css);
> -		ret = root_memcg;
> -	}
> -
> -	while (!ret) {
> -		rcu_read_lock();
> -		nextid = root_memcg->last_scanned_child + 1;
> -		css = css_get_next(&mem_cgroup_subsys, nextid, &root_memcg->css,
> -				   &found);
> -		if (css && css_tryget(css))
> -			ret = container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);
> -
> -		rcu_read_unlock();
> -		/* Updates scanning parameter */
> -		if (!css) {
> -			/* this means start scan from ID:1 */
> -			root_memcg->last_scanned_child = 0;
> -		} else
> -			root_memcg->last_scanned_child = found;
> -	}
> -
> -	return ret;
> -}
> -
>  /**
>   * test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable
>   * @mem: the target memcg
> @@ -1656,7 +1611,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
>  						unsigned long reclaim_options,
>  						unsigned long *total_scanned)
>  {
> -	struct mem_cgroup *victim;
> +	struct mem_cgroup *victim = NULL;
>  	int ret, total = 0;
>  	int loop = 0;
>  	bool noswap = reclaim_options & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP;
> @@ -1672,8 +1627,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
>  		noswap = true;
>  
>  	while (1) {
> -		victim = mem_cgroup_select_victim(root_memcg);
> -		if (victim == root_memcg) {
> +		victim = mem_cgroup_iter(root_memcg, victim, true);
> +		if (!victim) {
>  			loop++;
>  			/*
>  			 * We are not draining per cpu cached charges during
> @@ -1689,10 +1644,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
>  				 * anything, it might because there are
>  				 * no reclaimable pages under this hierarchy
>  				 */
> -				if (!check_soft || !total) {
> -					css_put(&victim->css);
> +				if (!check_soft || !total)
>  					break;
> -				}
>  				/*
>  				 * We want to do more targeted reclaim.
>  				 * excess >> 2 is not to excessive so as to
> @@ -1700,15 +1653,13 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
>  				 * coming back to reclaim from this cgroup
>  				 */
>  				if (total >= (excess >> 2) ||
> -					(loop > MEM_CGROUP_MAX_RECLAIM_LOOPS)) {
> -					css_put(&victim->css);
> +					(loop > MEM_CGROUP_MAX_RECLAIM_LOOPS))
>  					break;
> -				}
>  			}
> +			continue;

Souldn't we do

victim = root_memcg;

instead?

>  		}
>  		if (!mem_cgroup_reclaimable(victim, noswap)) {
>  			/* this cgroup's local usage == 0 */
> -			css_put(&victim->css);
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  		/* we use swappiness of local cgroup */
> @@ -1719,21 +1670,21 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
>  		} else
>  			ret = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(victim, gfp_mask,
>  						noswap);
> -		css_put(&victim->css);
>  		/*
>  		 * At shrinking usage, we can't check we should stop here or
>  		 * reclaim more. It's depends on callers. last_scanned_child
>  		 * will work enough for keeping fairness under tree.
>  		 */
>  		if (shrink)
> -			return ret;
> +			break;
>  		total += ret;
>  		if (check_soft) {
>  			if (!res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&root_memcg->res))
> -				return total;
> +				break;
>  		} else if (mem_cgroup_margin(root_memcg))
> -			return total;
> +			break;
>  	}
> +	mem_cgroup_iter_break(root_memcg, victim);
>  	return total;
>  }
>  
> @@ -1745,16 +1696,16 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
>  static bool mem_cgroup_oom_lock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  {
>  	struct mem_cgroup *iter, *failed = NULL;
> -	bool cond = true;
>  
> -	for_each_mem_cgroup_tree_cond(iter, memcg, cond) {
> +	for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) {
>  		if (iter->oom_lock) {
>  			/*
>  			 * this subtree of our hierarchy is already locked
>  			 * so we cannot give a lock.
>  			 */
>  			failed = iter;
> -			cond = false;
> +			mem_cgroup_iter_break(memcg, iter);
> +			break;
>  		} else
>  			iter->oom_lock = true;
>  	}
> @@ -1766,11 +1717,10 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_oom_lock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  	 * OK, we failed to lock the whole subtree so we have to clean up
>  	 * what we set up to the failing subtree
>  	 */
> -	cond = true;
> -	for_each_mem_cgroup_tree_cond(iter, memcg, cond) {
> +	for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) {
>  		if (iter == failed) {
> -			cond = false;
> -			continue;
> +			mem_cgroup_iter_break(memcg, iter);
> +			break;
>  		}
>  		iter->oom_lock = false;
>  	}
> @@ -2166,7 +2116,7 @@ static int __cpuinit memcg_cpu_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
>  	struct mem_cgroup *iter;
>  
>  	if ((action == CPU_ONLINE)) {
> -		for_each_mem_cgroup_all(iter)
> +		for_each_mem_cgroup(iter)
>  			synchronize_mem_cgroup_on_move(iter, cpu);
>  		return NOTIFY_OK;
>  	}
> @@ -2174,7 +2124,7 @@ static int __cpuinit memcg_cpu_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
>  	if ((action != CPU_DEAD) || action != CPU_DEAD_FROZEN)
>  		return NOTIFY_OK;
>  
> -	for_each_mem_cgroup_all(iter)
> +	for_each_mem_cgroup(iter)
>  		mem_cgroup_drain_pcp_counter(iter, cpu);
>  
>  	stock = &per_cpu(memcg_stock, cpu);
> -- 
> 1.7.6
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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