Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

[Michal Hocko]

On Thu 09-08-12 17:01:14, Glauber Costa wrote:
> This patch introduces infrastructure for tracking kernel memory pages to
> a given memcg. This will happen whenever the caller includes the flag
> __GFP_KMEMCG flag, and the task belong to a memcg other than the root.
> 
> In memcontrol.h those functions are wrapped in inline accessors.  The
> idea is to later on, patch those with static branches, so we don't incur
> any overhead when no mem cgroups with limited kmem are being used.
> 
> [ v2: improved comments and standardized function names ]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/memcontrol.h |  79 +++++++++++++++++++
>  mm/memcontrol.c            | 185 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 264 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index 8d9489f..75b247e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
[...]
> +/**
> + * memcg_kmem_new_page: verify if a new kmem allocation is allowed.
> + * @gfp: the gfp allocation flags.
> + * @handle: a pointer to the memcg this was charged against.
> + * @order: allocation order.
> + *
> + * returns true if the memcg where the current task belongs can hold this
> + * allocation.
> + *
> + * We return true automatically if this allocation is not to be accounted to
> + * any memcg.
> + */
> +static __always_inline bool
> +memcg_kmem_new_page(gfp_t gfp, void *handle, int order)
> +{
> +	if (!memcg_kmem_on)
> +		return true;
> +	if (!(gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG) || (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL))

OK, I see the point behind __GFP_NOFAIL but it would deserve a comment
or a mention in the changelog.

[...]
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 54e93de..e9824c1 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
[...]
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memcg_kmem_new_page);

Why is this exported?

> +
> +void __memcg_kmem_commit_page(struct page *page, void *handle, int order)
> +{
> +	struct page_cgroup *pc;
> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = handle;
> +
> +	if (!memcg)
> +		return;
> +
> +	WARN_ON(mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg));
> +	/* The page allocation must have failed. Revert */
> +	if (!page) {
> +		size_t size = PAGE_SIZE << order;
> +
> +		memcg_uncharge_kmem(memcg, size);
> +		mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> +	lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> +	pc->mem_cgroup = memcg;
> +	SetPageCgroupUsed(pc);

Don't we need a write barrier before assigning memcg? Same as
__mem_cgroup_commit_charge. This tests the Used bit always from within
lock_page_cgroup so it should be safe but I am not 100% sure about the
rest of the code.

[...]
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memcg_kmem_free_page);

Why is the symbol exported?

>  #endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
>  
>  #if defined(CONFIG_INET) && defined(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM)
> @@ -5759,3 +5878,69 @@ static int __init enable_swap_account(char *s)
>  __setup("swapaccount=", enable_swap_account);
>  
>  #endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +int memcg_charge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp, s64 delta)
> +{
> +	struct res_counter *fail_res;
> +	struct mem_cgroup *_memcg;
> +	int ret;
> +	bool may_oom;
> +	bool nofail = false;
> +
> +	may_oom = (gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && (gfp & __GFP_FS) &&
> +	    !(gfp & __GFP_NORETRY);

This deserves a comment.

> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +
> +	if (!memcg)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	_memcg = memcg;
> +	ret = __mem_cgroup_try_charge(NULL, gfp, delta / PAGE_SIZE,
> +	    &_memcg, may_oom);

This is really dangerous because atomic allocation which seem to be
possible could result in deadlocks because of the reclaim. Also, as I
have mentioned in the other email in this thread. Why should we reclaim
just because of kernel allocation when we are not reclaiming any of it
because shrink_slab is ignored in the memcg reclaim.

> +
> +	if (ret == -EINTR)  {
> +		nofail = true;
> +		/*
> +		 * __mem_cgroup_try_charge() chosed to bypass to root due to
> +		 * OOM kill or fatal signal.  Since our only options are to
> +		 * either fail the allocation or charge it to this cgroup, do
> +		 * it as a temporary condition. But we can't fail. From a
> +		 * kmem/slab perspective, the cache has already been selected,
> +		 * by mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(), so it is too late to change
> +		 * our minds
> +		 */
> +		res_counter_charge_nofail(&memcg->res, delta, &fail_res);
> +		if (do_swap_account)
> +			res_counter_charge_nofail(&memcg->memsw, delta,
> +						  &fail_res);

Hmmm, this is kind of ugly but I guess unvoidable with the current
implementation. Oh well...

> +		ret = 0;
> +	} else if (ret == -ENOMEM)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (nofail)
> +		res_counter_charge_nofail(&memcg->kmem, delta, &fail_res);
> +	else
> +		ret = res_counter_charge(&memcg->kmem, delta, &fail_res);
> +
> +	if (ret) {
> +		res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->res, delta);
> +		if (do_swap_account)
> +			res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, delta);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
[...]

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/