lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 00/15] mm: memory book keeping and lru_lock splitting
Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:43:52 +0400
>> Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@openvz.org> wrote:
>>
>>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:57:04 +0400
>>>> Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@openvz.org> 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@kvack.org. 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@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org</a>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-16 16:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans