| 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: <20140925152754.GF11080@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:27:54 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] mm: memcontrol: simplify detecting when the
memory+swap limit is hit
On Wed 24-09-14 11:08:57, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When attempting to charge pages, we first charge the memory counter
> and then the memory+swap counter. If one of the counters is at its
> limit, we enter reclaim, but if it's the memory+swap counter, reclaim
> shouldn't swap because that wouldn't change the situation. However,
> if the counters have the same limits, we never get to the memory+swap
> limit. To know whether reclaim should swap or not, there is a state
> flag that indicates whether the limits are equal and whether hitting
> the memory limit implies hitting the memory+swap limit.
>
> Just try the memory+swap counter first.
OK, this makes sense and makes the reclaim code little bit more
readable (). I would just add that the patch shouldn't have any visible
effectes because that is not apparent from the description.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 47 +++++++++++++----------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 1ec22bf380d0..89c920156c2a 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -315,9 +315,6 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> /* OOM-Killer disable */
> int oom_kill_disable;
>
> - /* set when res.limit == memsw.limit */
> - bool memsw_is_minimum;
> -
> /* protect arrays of thresholds */
> struct mutex thresholds_lock;
>
> @@ -1804,8 +1801,6 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>
> if (flags & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP)
> noswap = true;
> - if (!(flags & MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_SHRINK) && memcg->memsw_is_minimum)
> - noswap = true;
>
> for (loop = 0; loop < MEM_CGROUP_MAX_RECLAIM_LOOPS; loop++) {
> if (loop)
> @@ -2543,16 +2538,17 @@ retry:
> goto done;
>
> size = batch * PAGE_SIZE;
> - if (!res_counter_charge(&memcg->res, size, &fail_res)) {
> - if (!do_swap_account)
> + if (!do_swap_account ||
> + !res_counter_charge(&memcg->memsw, size, &fail_res)) {
> + if (!res_counter_charge(&memcg->res, size, &fail_res))
> goto done_restock;
> - if (!res_counter_charge(&memcg->memsw, size, &fail_res))
> - goto done_restock;
> - res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->res, size);
> + if (do_swap_account)
> + res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, size);
> + mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res);
> + } else {
> mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, memsw);
> flags |= MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP;
> - } else
> - mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res);
> + }
>
> if (batch > nr_pages) {
> batch = nr_pages;
> @@ -3615,7 +3611,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> unsigned long long val)
> {
> int retry_count;
> - u64 memswlimit, memlimit;
> int ret = 0;
> int children = mem_cgroup_count_children(memcg);
> u64 curusage, oldusage;
> @@ -3642,24 +3637,16 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> * We have to guarantee memcg->res.limit <= memcg->memsw.limit.
> */
> mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
> - memswlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT);
> - if (memswlimit < val) {
> + if (res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT) < val) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> break;
> }
>
> - memlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT);
> - if (memlimit < val)
> + if (res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT) < val)
> enlarge = 1;
>
> ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->res, val);
> - if (!ret) {
> - if (memswlimit == val)
> - memcg->memsw_is_minimum = true;
> - else
> - memcg->memsw_is_minimum = false;
> - }
> mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
>
> if (!ret)
> @@ -3684,7 +3671,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> unsigned long long val)
> {
> int retry_count;
> - u64 memlimit, memswlimit, oldusage, curusage;
> + u64 oldusage, curusage;
> int children = mem_cgroup_count_children(memcg);
> int ret = -EBUSY;
> int enlarge = 0;
> @@ -3703,22 +3690,14 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> * We have to guarantee memcg->res.limit <= memcg->memsw.limit.
> */
> mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
> - memlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT);
> - if (memlimit > val) {
> + if (res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT) > val) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> break;
> }
> - memswlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT);
> - if (memswlimit < val)
> + if (res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT) < val)
> enlarge = 1;
> ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->memsw, val);
> - if (!ret) {
> - if (memlimit == val)
> - memcg->memsw_is_minimum = true;
> - else
> - memcg->memsw_is_minimum = false;
> - }
> mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
>
> if (!ret)
> --
> 2.1.0
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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