| 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: <20131125162714.GA22729@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:27:14 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.cz, glommer@...nvz.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 03/15] vmscan: also shrink slab in memcg pressure
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 04:07:36PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org>
>
> Without the surrounding infrastructure, this patch is a bit of a hammer:
> it will basically shrink objects from all memcgs under memcg pressure.
> At least, however, we will keep the scan limited to the shrinkers marked
> as per-memcg.
>
> Future patches will implement the in-shrinker logic to filter objects
> based on its memcg association.
>
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> Cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 17 +++++++++++++++
> include/linux/shrinker.h | 6 +++++-
> mm/memcontrol.c | 16 +++++++++++++-
> mm/vmscan.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index b3e7a66..d16ba51 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ void mem_cgroup_split_huge_fixup(struct page *head);
> bool mem_cgroup_bad_page_check(struct page *page);
> void mem_cgroup_print_bad_page(struct page *page);
> #endif
> +
> +unsigned long
> +memcg_zone_reclaimable_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct zone *zone);
> #else /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
> struct mem_cgroup;
>
> @@ -427,6 +430,12 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_replace_page_cache(struct page *oldpage,
> struct page *newpage)
> {
> }
> +
> +static inline unsigned long
> +memcg_zone_reclaimable_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct zone *zone)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> #endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
>
> #if !defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) || !defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM)
> @@ -479,6 +488,8 @@ static inline bool memcg_kmem_enabled(void)
> return static_key_false(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key);
> }
>
> +bool memcg_kmem_is_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> +
> /*
> * In general, we'll do everything in our power to not incur in any overhead
> * for non-memcg users for the kmem functions. Not even a function call, if we
> @@ -612,6 +623,12 @@ memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
> return __memcg_kmem_get_cache(cachep, gfp);
> }
> #else
> +
> +static inline bool memcg_kmem_is_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> #define for_each_memcg_cache_index(_idx) \
> for (; NULL; )
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/shrinker.h b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> index 68c0970..7d462b1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/shrinker.h
> +++ b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ struct shrink_control {
> nodemask_t nodes_to_scan;
> /* current node being shrunk (for NUMA aware shrinkers) */
> int nid;
> +
> + /* reclaim from this memcg only (if not NULL) */
> + struct mem_cgroup *target_mem_cgroup;
> };
>
> #define SHRINK_STOP (~0UL)
> @@ -63,7 +66,8 @@ struct shrinker {
> #define DEFAULT_SEEKS 2 /* A good number if you don't know better. */
>
> /* Flags */
> -#define SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE (1 << 0)
> +#define SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE (1 << 0)
> +#define SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE (1 << 1)
>
> extern int register_shrinker(struct shrinker *);
> extern void unregister_shrinker(struct shrinker *);
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 144cb4c..8924ff1 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static inline void memcg_kmem_set_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> set_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_account_flags);
> }
>
> -static bool memcg_kmem_is_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +bool memcg_kmem_is_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> return test_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_account_flags);
> }
> @@ -958,6 +958,20 @@ mem_cgroup_zone_nr_lru_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid, int zid,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +unsigned long
> +memcg_zone_reclaimable_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct zone *zone)
If the prototype does not fit, please wrap the argument list, not the
return value. We are not consistent, but most functions are like this
in memcontrol.c and vmscan.c.
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index eea668d..652dfa3 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -140,11 +140,41 @@ static bool global_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> return !sc->target_mem_cgroup;
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * kmem reclaim should usually not be triggered when we are doing targetted
> + * reclaim. It is only valid when global reclaim is triggered, or when the
> + * underlying memcg has kmem objects.
> + */
> +static bool has_kmem_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
> +{
> + return !sc->target_mem_cgroup ||
> + memcg_kmem_is_active(sc->target_mem_cgroup);
> +}
Please opencode these checks in the callsite, they are more
descriptive than the name of this function.
> +static unsigned long
> +zone_nr_reclaimable_pages(struct scan_control *sc, struct zone *zone)
> +{
> + if (global_reclaim(sc))
> + return zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
> + return memcg_zone_reclaimable_pages(sc->target_mem_cgroup, zone);
> +}
So we have zone_reclaimable_pages() and zone_nr_reclaimable_pages()
with completely different signatures and usecases. Not good.
The intersection between a zone and a memcg is called an lruvec,
please use that. Look up an lruvec as early as possible, then
implement lruvec_reclaimable_pages() etc. for use during reclaim.
> @@ -352,6 +382,15 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> }
>
> list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
> + /*
> + * If we don't have a target mem cgroup, we scan them all.
> + * Otherwise we will limit our scan to shrinkers marked as
> + * memcg aware
> + */
> + if (shrinkctl->target_mem_cgroup &&
> + !(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE))
> + continue;
> +
> for_each_node_mask(shrinkctl->nid, shrinkctl->nodes_to_scan) {
> if (!node_online(shrinkctl->nid))
> continue;
> @@ -2399,11 +2438,11 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist,
>
> /*
> * Don't shrink slabs when reclaiming memory from over limit
> - * cgroups but do shrink slab at least once when aborting
> - * reclaim for compaction to avoid unevenly scanning file/anon
> - * LRU pages over slab pages.
> + * cgroups unless we know they have kmem objects. But do shrink
> + * slab at least once when aborting reclaim for compaction to
> + * avoid unevenly scanning file/anon LRU pages over slab pages.
> */
> - if (global_reclaim(sc)) {
> + if (has_kmem_reclaim(sc)) {
> unsigned long lru_pages = 0;
>
> nodes_clear(shrink->nodes_to_scan);
> @@ -2412,7 +2451,7 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
> continue;
>
> - lru_pages += zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
> + lru_pages += zone_nr_reclaimable_pages(sc, zone);
> node_set(zone_to_nid(zone),
> shrink->nodes_to_scan);
> }
> @@ -2669,6 +2708,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> };
> struct shrink_control shrink = {
> .gfp_mask = sc.gfp_mask,
> + .target_mem_cgroup = memcg,
> };
>
> /*
--
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