linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent

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, 5 Dec 2020 00:19:30 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] mm/memcontrol: make the slab
 calculation consistent

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:48 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:11:11AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > Although the ratio of the slab is one, we also should read the ratio
> > from the related memory_stats instead of hard-coding. And the local
> > variable of size is already the value of slab_unreclaimable. So we
> > do not need to read again. Simplify the code here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
>
> I agree that ignoring the ratio right now is not very pretty, but
>
>                 size = memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B) +
>                        memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B);
>                 seq_buf_printf(&s, "slab %llu\n", size);
>
> is way easier to understand and more robust than using idx and idx + 1
> and then requiring a series of BUG_ONs to ensure these two items are
> actually adjacent and in the right order.
>
> There is a redundant call to memcg_page_state(), granted, but that
> function is extremely cheap compared with e.g. seq_buf_printf().
>
> >  mm/memcontrol.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> IMO this really just complicates the code with little discernible
> upside. It's going to be a NAK from me, unfortunately.
>
>
> In retrospect, I think that memory_stats[] table was a mistake. It
> would probably be easier to implement this using a wrapper for
> memcg_page_state() that has a big switch() for unit
> conversion. Something like this:
>
> /* Translate stat items to the correct unit for memory.stat output */
> static unsigned long memcg_page_state_output(memcg, item)
> {
>         unsigned long value = memcg_page_state(memcg, item);
>         int unit = PAGE_SIZE;
>
>         switch (item) {
>         case NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B:
>         case NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B:
>         case WORKINGSET_REFAULT_ANON:
>         case WORKINGSET_REFAULT_FILE:
>         case WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE_ANON:
>         case WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE_FILE:
>         case WORKINGSET_RESTORE_ANON:
>         case WORKINGSET_RESTORE_FILE:
>         case MEMCG_PERCPU_B:
>                 unit = 1;
>                 break;
>         case NR_SHMEM_THPS:
>         case NR_FILE_THPS:
>         case NR_ANON_THPS:
>                 unit = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
>                 break;
>         case NR_KERNEL_STACK_KB:
>                 unit = 1024;
>                 break;
>         }
>
>         return value * unit;
> }
>
> This would fix the ratio inconsistency, get rid of the awkward mix of
> static and runtime initialization of the table, is probably about the
> same amount of code, but simpler and more obvious overall.

Good idea. I can do that :)

Thanks.

-- 
Yours,
Muchun