Re: [patch 04/11] mm: memcg: per-priority per-zone hierarchy scangenerations

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 20-09-11 11:10:32, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:45:32AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 12-09-11 12:57:21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Memory cgroup limit reclaim currently picks one memory cgroup out of
> > > the target hierarchy, remembers it as the last scanned child, and
> > > reclaims all zones in it with decreasing priority levels.
> > > 
> > > The new hierarchy reclaim code will pick memory cgroups from the same
> > > hierarchy concurrently from different zones and priority levels, it
> > > becomes necessary that hierarchy roots not only remember the last
> > > scanned child, but do so for each zone and priority level.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, detecting full hierarchy round-trips reliably will become
> > > crucial, so instead of counting on one iterator site seeing a certain
> > > memory cgroup twice, use a generation counter that is increased every
> > > time the child with the highest ID has been visited.
> > 
> > In principle I think the patch is good. I have some concerns about
> > locking and I would really appreciate some more description (like you
> > provided in the other email in this thread).
> 
> Okay, I'll incorporate that description into the changelog.

Thanks!

> 
> > > @@ -131,6 +136,8 @@ struct mem_cgroup_per_zone {
> > >  	struct list_head	lists[NR_LRU_LISTS];
> > >  	unsigned long		count[NR_LRU_LISTS];
> > >  
> > > +	struct mem_cgroup_iter_state iter_state[DEF_PRIORITY + 1];
> > > +
> > >  	struct zone_reclaim_stat reclaim_stat;
> > >  	struct rb_node		tree_node;	/* RB tree node */
> > >  	unsigned long long	usage_in_excess;/* Set to the value by which */
> > [...]
> > > @@ -781,9 +783,15 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > >  	return memcg;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +struct mem_cgroup_iter {
> > 
> > Wouldn't be mem_cgroup_zone_iter_state a better name. It is true it is
> > rather long but I find mem_cgroup_iter very confusing because the actual
> > position is stored in the zone's state. The other thing is that it looks
> > like we have two iterators in mem_cgroup_iter function now but in fact
> > the iter parameter is just a state when we start iteration.
> 
> Agreed, the naming is unfortunate.  How about
> mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie or something comparable?  It's limited to
> reclaim anyway, hierarchy walkers that do not age the LRU lists should
> not advance the shared iterator state, so might as well encode it in
> the name.

Sounds good.

> 
> > > +	struct zone *zone;
> > > +	int priority;
> > > +	unsigned int generation;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> > >  					  struct mem_cgroup *prev,
> > > -					  bool remember)
> > > +					  struct mem_cgroup_iter *iter)
> > 
> > I would rather see a different name for the last parameter
> > (iter_state?).
> 
> I'm with you on this.  Will think something up.
> 
> > > @@ -804,10 +812,20 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	while (!mem) {
> > > +		struct mem_cgroup_iter_state *uninitialized_var(is);
> > >  		struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> > >  
> > > -		if (remember)
> > > -			id = root->last_scanned_child;
> > > +		if (iter) {
> > > +			int nid = zone_to_nid(iter->zone);
> > > +			int zid = zone_idx(iter->zone);
> > > +			struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz;
> > > +
> > > +			mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(root, nid, zid);
> > > +			is = &mz->iter_state[iter->priority];
> > > +			if (prev && iter->generation != is->generation)
> > > +				return NULL;
> > > +			id = is->position;
> > 
> > Do we need any kind of locking here (spin_lock(&is->lock))?
> > If two parallel reclaimers start on the same zone and priority they will
> > see the same position and so bang on the same cgroup.
> 
> Note that last_scanned_child wasn't lock-protected before this series,
> so there is no actual difference.

that's a fair point. Anyway, I think it is worth mentioning this in the
patch description or in the comment to be clear that this is intentional.

> 
> I can say, though, that during development I had a lock in there for
> some time and it didn't make any difference for 32 concurrent
> reclaimers on a quadcore.  Feel free to evaluate with higher
> concurrency :)

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/