Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] mm: memory book keeping and lru_lock splitting

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:43:52 +0400
> > Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>   wrote:
> >
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:57:04 +0400
> > > > Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>    wrote:
> >
> > > > > * optimize page to book translations, move it upper in the call stack,
> > > > >      replace some struct zone arguments with struct book pointer.
> > > >
> > > > a page->book transrater from patch 2/15
> > > >
> > > > +struct book *page_book(struct page *page)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz;
> > > > +	struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > > > +		return&page_zone(page)->book;
> > > > +
> > > > +	pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > > > +	if (!PageCgroupUsed(pc))
> > > > +		return&page_zone(page)->book;
> > > > +	/* Ensure pc->mem_cgroup is visible after reading PCG_USED. */
> > > > +	smp_rmb();
> > > > +	mz = mem_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc->mem_cgroup,
> > > > +			page_to_nid(page), page_zonenum(page));
> > > > +	return&mz->book;
> > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > What happens when pc->mem_cgroup is rewritten by move_account() ?
> > > > Where is the guard for lockless access of this ?
> > >
> > > Initially this suppose to be protected with lru_lock, in final patch they are protected with rcu.
> >
> > Hmm, VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page)) ?
>
> Where?
>
> > move_account() overwrites pc->mem_cgroup with isolating page from LRU.
> > but it doesn't take lru_lock.
>
> There three kinds of lock_page_book() users:
> 1) caller want to catch page in LRU, it will lock either old or new book and
>      recheck PageLRU() after locking, if page not it in LRU it don't touch anything.
>      some of these functions has stable reference to page, some of them not.
>    [ There actually exist small race, I knew about it, just forget to pick this chunk from old code. See below. ]
> 2) page is isolated by caller, it want to put it back. book link is stable. no problems.
> 3) page-release functions. page-counter is zero. no references -- no problems.
>
> race for 1)
>
> catcher					switcher
>
> 					# isolate
> 					old_book = lock_page_book(page)
> 					ClearPageLRU(page)
> 					unlock_book(old_book)				
> 					# charge
> old_book = lock_page_book(page)		
> 					# switch
> 					page->book = new_book
> 					# putback
> 					lock_book(new_book)
> 					SetPageLRU(page)
> 					unlock_book(new_book)
> if (PageLRU(page))
> 	oops, page actually in new_book
> unlock_book(old_book)
>
>
> I'll protect "switch" phase with old_book lru-lock:
>
> lock_book(old_book)
> page->book = new_book
> unlock_book(old_book)

I found better solution for switcher sequence:

#isolate
old_book = lock_page_book(page)
ClearPageLRU(page)
unlock_book(old_book)				

#charge

#switch
page->book = new_book
spin_unlock_wait(&old_book->lru_lock)

#putback
lock_book(new_book)
SetPageLRU(page)
unlock_book(new_book)

this spin_unlock_wait() effectively stabilize PageLRU() sign
for potential old_book lock holder.

> The other option is recheck in "catcher" page book after PageLRU()
> maybe there exists some other variants.
>
> > BTW, what amount of perfomance benefit ?
>
> It depends, but usually lru_lock is very-very hot.
> This lock splitting can be used without cgroups and containers,
> now huge zones can be easily sliced into arbitrary pieces, for example one book per 256Mb.
>
>
>
> According to my experience, one of complicated thing there is how to postpone "book" destroying
> if some its pages are isolated. For example lumpy reclaim and memory compaction isolates pages
> from several books. And they wants to put them back. Currently this can be broken, if someone removes
> cgroup in wrong moment. There appears funny races with three players: catcher, switcher and destroyer.
> This can be fixed with some extra reference-counting or some other sleepable synchronizing.
> In my rhel6-based implementation I uses extra reference-counting, and it looks ugly. So I want to invent something better.
> Other option is just never release books, reuse them after rcu grace period for rcu-list iterating.

Looks like it is not broken, charged page will keep memcg books alive.
To make it completely safe rcu-free callback must wait on spin_unlock_wait(book->lru_lock).

> > Thanks,
> > -Kame
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
> Don't email:<a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";>  email@xxxxxxxxx</a>

--
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/