| 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: <20110920130915.GE27675@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:15 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
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>,
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 05/11] mm: move memcg hierarchy reclaim to generic
reclaim code
On Mon 12-09-11 12:57:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Memory cgroup limit reclaim and traditional global pressure reclaim
> will soon share the same code to reclaim from a hierarchical tree of
> memory cgroups.
>
> In preparation of this, move the two right next to each other in
> shrink_zone().
I like the way how you've split mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim into
mem_cgroup_reclaim and mem_cgroup_soft_reclaim and I guess this deserves
a note in the patch description. Especially that mem_cgroup_reclaim is
hierarchical even though it doesn't use mem_cgroup_iter directly but
rather via do_try_to_free_pages and shrink_zone.
I am not sure I see how shrink_mem_cgroup_zone works. See comments and
questions bellow:
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 25 ++++++-
> mm/memcontrol.c | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> mm/vmscan.c | 43 ++++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index f4b404e..413e1f8 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
[...]
> @@ -783,19 +781,33 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> return memcg;
> }
>
> -struct mem_cgroup_iter {
> - struct zone *zone;
> - int priority;
> - unsigned int generation;
> -};
> -
> -static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> - struct mem_cgroup *prev,
> - struct mem_cgroup_iter *iter)
> +/**
> + * mem_cgroup_iter - iterate over memory cgroup hierarchy
> + * @root: hierarchy root
> + * @prev: previously returned memcg, NULL on first invocation
> + * @iter: token for partial walks, NULL for full walks
> + *
> + * Returns references to children of the hierarchy starting at @root,
I guess you meant "starting at @prev"
> + * or @root itself, or %NULL after a full round-trip.
> + *
> + * Caller must pass the return value in @prev on subsequent
> + * invocations for reference counting, or use mem_cgroup_iter_break()
> + * to cancel a hierarchy walk before the round-trip is complete.
> + *
> + * Reclaimers can specify a zone and a priority level in @iter to
> + * divide up the memcgs in the hierarchy among all concurrent
> + * reclaimers operating on the same zone and priority.
> + */
> +struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> + struct mem_cgroup *prev,
> + struct mem_cgroup_iter *iter)
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *mem = NULL;
> int id = 0;
>
> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> + return NULL;
> +
> if (!root)
> root = root_mem_cgroup;
>
[...]
> @@ -1479,6 +1496,41 @@ u64 mem_cgroup_get_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> return min(limit, memsw);
> }
>
> +static unsigned long mem_cgroup_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> + gfp_t gfp_mask,
> + unsigned long flags)
> +{
> + unsigned long total = 0;
> + bool noswap = false;
> + int loop;
> +
> + if (flags & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP)
> + noswap = true;
> + else if (!(flags & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK) && mem->memsw_is_minimum)
> + noswap = true;
> +
> + for (loop = 0; loop < MEM_CGROUP_MAX_RECLAIM_LOOPS; loop++) {
> + if (loop)
> + drain_all_stock_async(mem);
> + total += try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(mem, gfp_mask, noswap);
> + /*
> + * Avoid freeing too much when shrinking to resize the
> + * limit. XXX: Shouldn't the margin check be enough?
I guess the MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK condition should help shrinkers to
die more easily on signal even if they make some progress.
> + */
> + if (total && (flags & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK))
> + break;
> + if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem))
> + break;
> + /*
> + * If nothing was reclaimed after two attempts, there
> + * may be no reclaimable pages in this hierarchy.
> + */
> + if (loop && !total)
> + break;
> + }
> + return total;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable
> * @mem: the target memcg
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 92f4e22..8419e8f 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2104,12 +2104,43 @@ restart:
> static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> - struct mem_cgroup_zone mz = {
> - .mem_cgroup = sc->target_mem_cgroup,
> + struct mem_cgroup *root = sc->target_mem_cgroup;
> + struct mem_cgroup_iter iter = {
> .zone = zone,
> + .priority = priority,
> };
> + struct mem_cgroup *mem;
> +
> + if (global_reclaim(sc)) {
> + struct mem_cgroup_zone mz = {
> + .mem_cgroup = NULL,
> + .zone = zone,
> + };
> +
> + shrink_mem_cgroup_zone(priority, &mz, sc);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + mem = mem_cgroup_iter(root, NULL, &iter);
> + do {
> + struct mem_cgroup_zone mz = {
> + .mem_cgroup = mem,
> + .zone = zone,
> + };
>
> - shrink_mem_cgroup_zone(priority, &mz, sc);
> + shrink_mem_cgroup_zone(priority, &mz, sc);
> + /*
> + * Limit reclaim has historically picked one memcg and
> + * scanned it with decreasing priority levels until
> + * nr_to_reclaim had been reclaimed. This priority
> + * cycle is thus over after a single memcg.
> + */
> + if (!global_reclaim(sc)) {
How can we have global_reclaim(sc) == true here?
Shouldn't we just check how much have we reclaimed from that group and
iterate only if it wasn't sufficient (at least SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)?
> + mem_cgroup_iter_break(root, mem);
> + break;
> + }
> + mem = mem_cgroup_iter(root, mem, &iter);
> + } while (mem);
> }
>
> /*
[...]
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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