| 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: <20180520075558.6ls4yzrkou63orkb@esperanza>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 10:55:58 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.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,
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: Re: [PATCH v6 12/17] mm: Set bit in memcg shrinker bitmap on first
list_lru item apearance
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:43:42AM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Introduce set_shrinker_bit() function to set shrinker-related
> bit in memcg shrinker bitmap, and set the bit after the first
> item is added and in case of reparenting destroyed memcg's items.
>
> This will allow next patch to make shrinkers be called only,
> in case of they have charged objects at the moment, and
> to improve shrink_slab() performance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> mm/list_lru.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index e51c6e953d7a..7ae1b94becf3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -1275,6 +1275,18 @@ static inline int memcg_cache_id(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>
> extern int memcg_expand_shrinker_maps(int new_id);
>
> +static inline void memcg_set_shrinker_bit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> + int nid, int shrinker_id)
> +{
> + if (shrinker_id >= 0 && memcg && memcg != root_mem_cgroup) {
Nit: I'd remove these checks from this function and require the caller
to check that shrinker_id >= 0 and memcg != NULL or root_mem_cgroup.
See below how the call sites would look then.
> + struct memcg_shrinker_map *map;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + map = rcu_dereference(memcg->nodeinfo[nid]->shrinker_map);
> + set_bit(shrinker_id, map->map);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> +}
> #else
> #define for_each_memcg_cache_index(_idx) \
> for (; NULL; )
> @@ -1297,6 +1309,8 @@ static inline void memcg_put_cache_ids(void)
> {
> }
>
> +static inline void memcg_set_shrinker_bit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> + int nid, int shrinker_id) { }
> #endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H */
> diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
> index cab8fad7f7e2..7df71ab0de1c 100644
> --- a/mm/list_lru.c
> +++ b/mm/list_lru.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ static void list_lru_unregister(struct list_lru *lru)
> mutex_unlock(&list_lrus_mutex);
> }
>
> +static int lru_shrinker_id(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + return lru->shrinker_id;
> +}
> +
> static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> /*
> @@ -94,6 +99,11 @@ static void list_lru_unregister(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> }
>
> +static int lru_shrinker_id(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + return -1;
> +}
> +
> static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> return false;
> @@ -119,13 +129,17 @@ bool list_lru_add(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item)
> {
> int nid = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(item));
> struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> struct list_lru_one *l;
>
> spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
> if (list_empty(item)) {
> - l = list_lru_from_kmem(nlru, item, NULL);
> + l = list_lru_from_kmem(nlru, item, &memcg);
> list_add_tail(item, &l->list);
> - l->nr_items++;
> + /* Set shrinker bit if the first element was added */
> + if (!l->nr_items++)
> + memcg_set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid,
> + lru_shrinker_id(lru));
This would turn into
if (!l->nr_items++ && memcg)
memcg_set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, lru_shrinker_id(lru));
Note, you don't need to check that lru_shrinker_id(lru) is >= 0 here as
the fact that memcg != NULL guarantees that. Also, memcg can't be
root_mem_cgroup here as kmem objects allocated for the root cgroup go
unaccounted.
> nlru->nr_items++;
> spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
> return true;
> @@ -520,6 +534,7 @@ static void memcg_drain_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
> struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
> int dst_idx = dst_memcg->kmemcg_id;
> struct list_lru_one *src, *dst;
> + bool set;
>
> /*
> * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
> @@ -531,7 +546,10 @@ static void memcg_drain_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
> dst = list_lru_from_memcg_idx(nlru, dst_idx);
>
> list_splice_init(&src->list, &dst->list);
> + set = (!dst->nr_items && src->nr_items);
> dst->nr_items += src->nr_items;
> + if (set)
> + memcg_set_shrinker_bit(dst_memcg, nid, lru_shrinker_id(lru));
This would turn into
if (set && dst_idx >= 0)
memcg_set_shrinker_bit(dst_memcg, nid, lru_shrinker_id(lru));
Again, the shrinker is guaranteed to be memcg aware in this function and
dst_memcg != NULL.
IMHO such a change would make the code a bit more straightforward.
> src->nr_items = 0;
>
> spin_unlock_irq(&nlru->lock);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists