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: <3782D28E-B0F0-4CC7-98A6-27E443A92730@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 10:31:20 +0800
From: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
To: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
 hannes@...xchg.org,
 mhocko@...nel.org,
 roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
 shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 david@...morbit.com,
 zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
 yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev,
 nphamcs@...il.com,
 chengming.zhou@...ux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org,
 hamzamahfooz@...ux.microsoft.com,
 apais@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 27/28] mm: memcontrol: eliminate the problem of dying
 memory cgroup for LRU folios



> On May 20, 2025, at 19:27, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 10:45:31AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
>> Pagecache pages are charged at allocation time and hold a reference
>> to the original memory cgroup until reclaimed. Depending on memory
>> pressure, page sharing patterns between different cgroups and cgroup
>> creation/destruction rates, many dying memory cgroups can be pinned
>> by pagecache pages, reducing page reclaim efficiency and wasting
>> memory. Converting LRU folios and most other raw memory cgroup pins
>> to the object cgroup direction can fix this long-living problem.
>> 
>> Finally, folio->memcg_data of LRU folios and kmem folios will always
>> point to an object cgroup pointer. The folio->memcg_data of slab
>> folios will point to an vector of object cgroups.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/memcontrol.h |  78 +++++--------
>> mm/huge_memory.c           |  33 ++++++
>> mm/memcontrol-v1.c         |  15 ++-
>> mm/memcontrol.c            | 228 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> 4 files changed, 222 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-)
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +static void lruvec_reparent_lru(struct lruvec *src, struct lruvec *dst,
>> + 				enum lru_list lru)
>> +{
>> + 	int zid;
>> + 	struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz_src, *mz_dst;
>> +
>> + 	mz_src = container_of(src, struct mem_cgroup_per_node, lruvec);
>> + 	mz_dst = container_of(dst, struct mem_cgroup_per_node, lruvec);
>> +	
>> + 	if (lru != LRU_UNEVICTABLE)
>> + 	list_splice_tail_init(&src->lists[lru], &dst->lists[lru]);
>> +
>> + 	for (zid = 0; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
>> + 		mz_dst->lru_zone_size[zid][lru] += mz_src->lru_zone_size[zid][lru];
>> + 		mz_src->lru_zone_size[zid][lru] = 0;
>> + 	}
>> +}
> 
> I think this function should also update memcg and lruvec stats of
> parent memcg? Or is it intentional?

Hi Harry,

No. Do not need. Because the statistics are accounted hierarchically.

Thanks.

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Harry / Hyeonggon



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ