linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/10] mm/memcg: take care over pc->mem

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:05:49 +0400
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/10] mm/memcg: take care over pc->mem_cgroup

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:34:28 -0800 (PST)
>> Hugh Dickins<hughd@...gle.com>  wrote:
>> 	return NULL;
>>>
>>> +	lruvec = page_lock_lruvec(page);
>>>   	lock_page_cgroup(pc);
>>>
>>
>> Do we need to take lrulock+irq disable per page in this very very hot path ?
>
> I'm sure we don't want to: I hope you were pleased to find it goes away
> (from most cases) a couple of patches later.
>
> I had lruvec lock nested inside page_cgroup lock in the rollup I sent in
> December, whereas you went for page_cgroup lock nested inside lruvec lock
> in your lrucare patch.
>
> I couldn't find an imperative reason why they should be one way round or
> the other, so I tried hard to stick with your ordering, and it did work
> (in this 6/10).  But then I couldn't work out how to get rid of the
> overheads added in doing it this way round, so swapped them back.
>
>>
>> Hmm.... How about adding NR_ISOLATED counter into lruvec ?
>>
>> Then, we can delay freeing lruvec until all conunters goes down to zero.
>> as...
>>
>> 	bool we_can_free_lruvec = true;
>>
>> 	lock_lruvec(lruvec->lock);
>> 	for_each_lru_lruvec(lru)
>> 		if (!list_empty(&lruvec->lru[lru]))
>> 			we_can_free_lruvec = false;
>> 	if (lruvec->nr_isolated)
>> 		we_can_free_lruvec = false;
>> 	unlock_lruvec(lruvec)
>> 	if (we_can_free_lruvec)
>> 		kfree(lruvec);
>>
>> If compaction, lumpy reclaim free a page taken from LRU,
>> it knows what it does and can decrement lruvec->nr_isolated properly
>> (it seems zone's NR_ISOLATED is decremented at putback.)
>
> At the moment I'm thinking that what we end up with by 9/10 is
> better than adding such a refcount.  But I'm not entirely happy with
> mem_cgroup_reset_uncharged_to_root (it adds a further page_cgroup
> lookup just after I got rid of some others), and need yet to think
> about the race which Konstantin posits, so all options remain open.

This lruvec->nr_isolated seem reasonable, and its managegin not very costly.
In move_account() we anyway need to touch old_lruvec->lru_lock after recharge,
to stabilize PageLRU() before adding page to new_lruvec. (because that race)
In migration/compaction this handled automatically, because they always call putback_lru_page() at the end.
Main problem is shrink_page_list() for lumpy-reclaim, but seems like it never used if memory
compaction is enabled, so it can be slow and ineffective with tons of lru_list relocks.

>
> Hugh

--
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/