linux-kernel - [PATCH v5 13/13] mm: Clear shrinker bit if there are no objects related to memcg

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: <152594605549.22949.16491037134168999424.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 12:54:15 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, 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,
        ying.huang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, jbacik@...com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, willy@...radead.org, lirongqing@...du.com,
        aryabinin@...tuozzo.com
Subject: [PATCH v5 13/13] mm: Clear shrinker bit if there are no objects
 related to memcg

To avoid further unneed calls of do_shrink_slab()
for shrinkers, which already do not have any charged
objects in a memcg, their bits have to be cleared.

This patch introduces a lockless mechanism to do that
without races without parallel list lru add. After
do_shrink_slab() returns SHRINK_EMPTY the first time,
we clear the bit and call it once again. Then we restore
the bit, if the new return value is different.

Note, that single smp_mb__after_atomic() in shrink_slab_memcg()
covers two situations:

1)list_lru_add()     shrink_slab_memcg
    list_add_tail()    for_each_set_bit() <--- read bit
                         do_shrink_slab() <--- missed list update (no barrier)
    <MB>                 <MB>
    set_bit()            do_shrink_slab() <--- seen list update

This situation, when the first do_shrink_slab() sees set bit,
but it doesn't see list update (i.e., race with the first element
queueing), is rare. So we don't add <MB> before the first call
of do_shrink_slab() instead of this to do not slow down generic
case. Also, it's need the second call as seen in below in (2).

2)list_lru_add()      shrink_slab_memcg()
    list_add_tail()     ...
    set_bit()           ...
  ...                   for_each_set_bit()
  do_shrink_slab()        do_shrink_slab()
    clear_bit()           ...
  ...                     ...
  list_lru_add()          ...
    list_add_tail()       clear_bit()
    <MB>                  <MB>
    set_bit()             do_shrink_slab()

The barriers guarantees, the second do_shrink_slab()
in the right side task sees list update if really
cleared the bit. This case is drawn in the code comment.

[Results/performance of the patchset]

After the whole patchset applied the below test shows signify
increase of performance:

$echo 1 > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/memory.use_hierarchy
$mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct
$echo 4000M > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct/memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes
    $for i in `seq 0 4000`; do mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct/$i; echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ct/$i/cgroup.procs; mkdir -p s/$i; mount -t tmpfs $i s/$i; touch s/$i/file; done

Then, 5 sequential calls of drop caches:
$time echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

1)Before:
0.00user 13.78system 0:13.78elapsed 99%CPU
0.00user 5.59system 0:05.60elapsed 99%CPU
0.00user 5.48system 0:05.48elapsed 99%CPU
0.00user 8.35system 0:08.35elapsed 99%CPU
0.00user 8.34system 0:08.35elapsed 99%CPU

2)After
0.00user 1.10system 0:01.10elapsed 99%CPU
0.00user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 64%CPU
0.00user 0.01system 0:00.01elapsed 82%CPU
0.00user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 64%CPU
0.00user 0.01system 0:00.01elapsed 82%CPU

The results show the performance increases at least in 548 times.

Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
---
 include/linux/memcontrol.h |    2 ++
 mm/vmscan.c                |   19 +++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 436691a66500..82c0bf2d0579 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -1283,6 +1283,8 @@ static inline void memcg_set_shrinker_bit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid, int
 
 		rcu_read_lock();
 		map = MEMCG_SHRINKER_MAP(memcg, nid);
+		/* Pairs with smp mb in shrink_slab() */
+		smp_mb__before_atomic();
 		set_bit(nr, map->map);
 		rcu_read_unlock();
 	}
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 7b0075612d73..189b163bef4a 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -586,8 +586,23 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
 			continue;
 
 		ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
-		if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
-			ret = 0;
+		if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY) {
+			clear_bit(i, map->map);
+			/*
+			 * Pairs with mb in memcg_set_shrinker_bit():
+			 *
+			 * list_lru_add()     shrink_slab_memcg()
+			 *   list_add_tail()    clear_bit()
+			 *   <MB>               <MB>
+			 *   set_bit()          do_shrink_slab()
+			 */
+			smp_mb__after_atomic();
+			ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority);
+			if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY)
+				ret = 0;
+			else
+				memcg_set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, i);
+		}
 		freed += ret;
 
 		if (rwsem_is_contended(&shrinker_rwsem)) {