linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/17] mem/memcg: cache rightmost node

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]

Message-ID: <20170719075036.GA26779@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:50:36 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        jack@...e.cz, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, hch@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/17] mem/memcg: cache rightmost node

[CC Johannes and Vladimir - the whole series is
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170719014603.19029-1-dave@stgolabs.net]

On Tue 18-07-17 18:46:02, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Such that we can optimize __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node().
> The only overhead is the extra footprint for the cached pointer,
> but this should not be an issue for mem_cgroup_tree_per_node.

The soft limit reclaim and the associated tree manipulation is not worth
touching/optimizing IMHO. We strongly discourage anybody configuring
soft limit because of the way how it is implemented and disruptive.

> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 3df3c04d73ab..2ef9328ace2e 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ static const char *const mem_cgroup_lru_names[] = {
>  
>  struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node {
>  	struct rb_root rb_root;
> +	struct rb_node *rb_rightmost;
>  	spinlock_t lock;
>  };
>  
> @@ -386,6 +387,7 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
>  	struct rb_node **p = &mctz->rb_root.rb_node;
>  	struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
>  	struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz_node;
> +	bool rightmost = true;
>  
>  	if (mz->on_tree)
>  		return;
> @@ -397,8 +399,11 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
>  		parent = *p;
>  		mz_node = rb_entry(parent, struct mem_cgroup_per_node,
>  					tree_node);
> -		if (mz->usage_in_excess < mz_node->usage_in_excess)
> +		if (mz->usage_in_excess < mz_node->usage_in_excess) {
>  			p = &(*p)->rb_left;
> +			rightmost = false;
> +		}
> +
>  		/*
>  		 * We can't avoid mem cgroups that are over their soft
>  		 * limit by the same amount
> @@ -406,6 +411,10 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
>  		else if (mz->usage_in_excess >= mz_node->usage_in_excess)
>  			p = &(*p)->rb_right;
>  	}
> +
> +	if (rightmost)
> +		mctz->rb_rightmost = &mz->tree_node;
> +
>  	rb_link_node(&mz->tree_node, parent, p);
>  	rb_insert_color(&mz->tree_node, &mctz->rb_root);
>  	mz->on_tree = true;
> @@ -416,6 +425,10 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
>  {
>  	if (!mz->on_tree)
>  		return;
> +
> +	if (&mz->tree_node == mctz->rb_rightmost)
> +		mctz->rb_rightmost = rb_next(&mz->tree_node);
> +
>  	rb_erase(&mz->tree_node, &mctz->rb_root);
>  	mz->on_tree = false;
>  }
> @@ -496,16 +509,15 @@ static void mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  static struct mem_cgroup_per_node *
>  __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node(struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *mctz)
>  {
> -	struct rb_node *rightmost = NULL;
>  	struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz;
>  
>  retry:
>  	mz = NULL;
> -	rightmost = rb_last(&mctz->rb_root);
> -	if (!rightmost)
> +	if (!mctz->rb_rightmost)
>  		goto done;		/* Nothing to reclaim from */
>  
> -	mz = rb_entry(rightmost, struct mem_cgroup_per_node, tree_node);
> +	mz = rb_entry(mctz->rb_rightmost,
> +		      struct mem_cgroup_per_node, tree_node);
>  	/*
>  	 * Remove the node now but someone else can add it back,
>  	 * we will to add it back at the end of reclaim to its correct
> @@ -5850,6 +5862,7 @@ static int __init mem_cgroup_init(void)
>  				    node_online(node) ? node : NUMA_NO_NODE);
>  
>  		rtpn->rb_root = RB_ROOT;
> +		rtpn->rb_rightmost = NULL;
>  		spin_lock_init(&rtpn->lock);
>  		soft_limit_tree.rb_tree_per_node[node] = rtpn;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.12.0

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs