[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a9fe3e9e-a1b7-ee19-35e6-af32b5f25a37@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 19:17:14 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
stummala@...eaurora.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, mka@...omium.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>, longman@...hat.com,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, jbacik@...com,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, lirongqing@...du.com,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/17] mm: Assign id to every memcg-aware shrinker
Hi, Shakeel,
On 03.07.2018 18:46, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:27 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:09:05PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> @@ -169,6 +169,49 @@ unsigned long vm_total_pages;
>>> static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
>>> static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>>> +static DEFINE_IDR(shrinker_idr);
>>> +static int shrinker_nr_max;
>>
>> So ... we've now got a list_head (shrinker_list) which contains all of
>> the shrinkers, plus a shrinker_idr which contains the memcg-aware shrinkers?
>>
>> Why not replace the shrinker_list with the shrinker_idr? It's only used
>> twice in vmscan.c:
>>
>> void register_shrinker_prepared(struct shrinker *shrinker)
>> {
>> down_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>> list_add_tail(&shrinker->list, &shrinker_list);
>> up_write(&shrinker_rwsem);
>> }
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) {
>> ...
>>
>> The first is simply idr_alloc() and the second is
>>
>> idr_for_each_entry(&shrinker_idr, shrinker, id) {
>>
>> I understand there's a difference between allocating the shrinker's ID and
>> adding it to the list. You can do this by calling idr_alloc with NULL
>> as the pointer, and then using idr_replace() when you want to add the
>> shrinker to the list. idr_for_each_entry() skips over NULL entries.
>>
>> This will actually reduce the size of each shrinker and be more
>> cache-efficient when calling the shrinkers. I think we can also get
>> rid of the shrinker_rwsem eventually, but let's leave it for now.
>
> Can you explain how you envision shrinker_rwsem can be removed? I am
> very much interested in doing that.
Have you tried to do some games with SRCU? It looks like we just need to
teach count_objects() and scan_objects() to work with semi-destructed
shrinkers. Though, this looks this will make impossible to introduce
shrinkers, which do synchronize_srcu() in scan_objects() for example.
Not sure, someone will actually use this, and this is possible to consider
as limitation.
Kirill
Powered by blists - more mailing lists