| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 11:43:29 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
trond.myklebust@...merspace.com, anna.schumaker@...app.com,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
Xiongchun duan <duanxiongchun@...edance.com>,
fam.zheng@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] mm: list_lru: replace linear
array with xarray
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:08 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 02:21:44PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > If we run 10k containers in the system, the size of the
> > list_lru_memcg->lrus can be ~96KB per list_lru. When we decrease the
> > number containers, the size of the array will not be shrinked. It is
> > not scalable. The xarray is a good choice for this case. We can save
> > a lot of memory when there are tens of thousands continers in the
> > system. If we use xarray, we also can remove the logic code of
> > resizing array, which can simplify the code.
>
> I am all for this, in concept. Some thoughts below ...
>
> > @@ -56,10 +51,8 @@ struct list_lru {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> > struct list_head list;
> > int shrinker_id;
> > - /* protects ->memcg_lrus->lrus[i] */
> > - spinlock_t lock;
> > /* for cgroup aware lrus points to per cgroup lists, otherwise NULL */
> > - struct list_lru_memcg __rcu *memcg_lrus;
> > + struct xarray *xa;
> > #endif
>
> Normally, we embed an xarray in its containing structure instead of
> allocating it. It's only a pointer, int and spinlock, so generally
> 16 bytes, as opposed to the 8 bytes for the pointer and a 16 byte
> allocation. There is a minor wrinkle in that currently 'NULL' is
> used to indicate "is not cgroup aware". Maybe there's another way
> to indicate that?
Sure. I can drop patch 8 in this series. In that case, we can use
->memcg_aware to indicate that.
>
> > @@ -51,22 +51,12 @@ static int lru_shrinker_id(struct list_lru *lru)
> > static inline struct list_lru_one *
> > list_lru_from_memcg_idx(struct list_lru *lru, int nid, int idx)
> > {
> > - struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> > - struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
> > + if (list_lru_memcg_aware(lru) && idx >= 0) {
> > + struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru = xa_load(lru->xa, idx);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Either lock or RCU protects the array of per cgroup lists
> > - * from relocation (see memcg_update_list_lru).
> > - */
> > - memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_check(lru->memcg_lrus,
> > - lockdep_is_held(&nlru->lock));
> > - if (memcg_lrus && idx >= 0) {
> > - struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru;
> > -
> > - mlru = rcu_dereference_check(memcg_lrus->lrus[idx], true);
> > return mlru ? &mlru->nodes[nid] : NULL;
> > }
> > - return &nlru->lru;
> > + return &lru->node[nid].lru;
> > }
>
> ... perhaps we move the xarray out from under the #ifdef and use index 0
> for non-memcg-aware lrus? The XArray is specially optimised for arrays
> which only have one entry at 0.
Sounds like a good idea. I can do a try.
>
> > int list_lru_memcg_alloc(struct list_lru *lru, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp)
> > {
> > + XA_STATE(xas, lru->xa, 0);
> > unsigned long flags;
> > - struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
> > - int i;
> > + int i, ret = 0;
> >
> > struct list_lru_memcg_table {
> > struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru;
> > @@ -601,22 +522,45 @@ int list_lru_memcg_alloc(struct list_lru *lru, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t g
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&lru->lock, flags);
> > - memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_protected(lru->memcg_lrus, true);
> > + xas_lock_irqsave(&xas, flags);
> > while (i--) {
> > int index = memcg_cache_id(table[i].memcg);
> > struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru = table[i].mlru;
> >
> > - if (index < 0 || rcu_dereference_protected(memcg_lrus->lrus[index], true))
> > + xas_set(&xas, index);
> > +retry:
> > + if (unlikely(index < 0 || ret || xas_load(&xas))) {
> > kfree(mlru);
> > - else
> > - rcu_assign_pointer(memcg_lrus->lrus[index], mlru);
> > + } else {
> > + ret = xa_err(xas_store(&xas, mlru));
>
> This is mixing advanced and normal XArray concepts ... sorry to have
> confused you. I think what you meant to do here was:
>
> xas_store(&xas, mlru);
> ret = xas_error(&xas);
Sure. Thanks for pointing it out. It's my bad usage.
>
> Or you can avoid introducing 'ret' at all, and keep your errors in the
> xa_state. You're kind of mirroring the xa_state errors into 'ret'
> anyway, so that seems easier to understand?
Make sense. I will do this in the next version. Thanks for your
all suggestions.
>
> > - memcg_id = memcg_alloc_cache_id();
> > + memcg_id = ida_simple_get(&memcg_cache_ida, 0, MEMCG_CACHES_MAX_SIZE,
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
>
> memcg_id = ida_alloc_max(&memcg_cache_ida,
> MEMCG_CACHES_MAX_SIZE - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> ... although i think there's actually a fencepost error, and this really
> should be MEMCG_CACHES_MAX_SIZE.
Totally agree. I have fixed this issue in patch 19.
>
> > objcg = obj_cgroup_alloc();
> > if (!objcg) {
> > - memcg_free_cache_id(memcg_id);
> > + ida_simple_remove(&memcg_cache_ida, memcg_id);
>
> ida_free(&memcg_cache_ida, memcg_id);
I Will update to this new API.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists