linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] mm: Iterate only over charged shrinkers during memcg shrink

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:   Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:11:10 +0300
From:   Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        pombredanne@...b.com, stummala@...eaurora.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, guro@...com,
        mka@...omium.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
        chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, longman@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org,
        hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, shakeelb@...gle.com, jbacik@...com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] mm: Iterate only over charged shrinkers during
 memcg shrink_slab()

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:22:51PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Using the preparations made in previous patches, in case of memcg
> shrink, we may avoid shrinkers, which are not set in memcg's shrinkers
> bitmap. To do that, we separate iterations over memcg-aware and
> !memcg-aware shrinkers, and memcg-aware shrinkers are chosen
> via for_each_set_bit() from the bitmap. In case of big nodes,
> having many isolated environments, this gives significant
> performance growth. See next patch for the details.
> 
> Note, that the patch does not respect to empty memcg shrinkers,
> since we never clear the bitmap bits after we set it once.
> Their shrinkers will be called again, with no shrinked objects
> as result. This functionality is provided by next patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |   54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 265cf069b470..e1fd16bc7a9b 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -327,6 +327,8 @@ static int alloc_shrinker_id(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>  
>  	if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE))
>  		return 0;
> +	BUG_ON(!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE));
> +
>  retry:
>  	ida_pre_get(&bitmap_id_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	down_write(&bitmap_rwsem);
> @@ -366,7 +368,8 @@ static void add_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>  	down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>  	if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE)
>  		mcg_shrinkers[shrinker->id] = shrinker;
> -	list_add_tail(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
> +	else
> +		list_add_tail(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);

I don't think we should remove per-memcg shrinkers from the global
shrinker list - this is confusing. It won't be critical if we iterate
over all shrinkers on global reclaim, will it?

>  	up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>  }
>  
> @@ -701,6 +705,39 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
>  	if (!down_read_trylock(&shrinker_rwsem))
>  		goto out;
>  
> +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && !defined(CONFIG_SLOB)
> +	if (!memcg_kmem_enabled() || memcg) {
> +		struct shrinkers_map *map;
> +		int i;
> +
> +		map = rcu_dereference_protected(SHRINKERS_MAP(memcg), true);
> +		if (map) {
> +			for_each_set_bit(i, map->map[nid], bitmap_nr_ids) {
> +				struct shrink_control sc = {
> +					.gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
> +					.nid = nid,
> +					.memcg = memcg,
> +				};
> +
> +				shrinker = mcg_shrinkers[i];
> +				if (!shrinker) {
> +					clear_bit(i, map->map[nid]);
> +					continue;
> +				}
> +				freed += do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
> +
> +				if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {
> +					freed = freed ? : 1;
> +					goto unlock;
> +				}
> +			}
> +		}
> +
> +		if (memcg_kmem_enabled() && memcg)
> +			goto unlock;

May be, factor this out to a separate function, say shrink_slab_memcg?
Just for the sake of code legibility.