lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFI] Help Resource Counters scale better
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-08-03 10:13:06]:

> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:55:17 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Enhancement: For scalability move the resource counter to a percpu counter
> >
> > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > This patch changes the usage field of a resource counter to a percpu
> > counter. The counter is incremented with local irq disabled. The other
> > fields are still protected by the spin lock for write.
> >
> thanks, will have to go this way.
>
>
> > This patch adds a fuzziness factor to hard limit, since the value we read
> > could be off the original value (by batch value), this can be fixed
> > by adding a strict/non-strict functionality check. The intention is
> > to turn of strict checking for root (since we can't set limits on
> turn off ?
> > it anyway).
> >
>
> Hmm, this is the first problem of per-cpu counter, always.
> I wonder if there are systems with thousands of cpus, it has
> tons of memory. Then, if jitter per cpu is enough small,
> it will not be big problem anyway.

Agreed

> But... root only ?
>

We can extend it, but I wanted to allow the user to specify for other
groups, to provide flexibility and backward compatability. For root
I want to use it by default.

> > I tested this patch on my x86_64 box with a regular test for hard
> > limits and a page fault program.
> >
> > This is an early RFI on the design and changes for resource counter
> > functionality to help it scale better.
> >
> > Direct uses of mem->res.usage in memcontrol.c have been converted
> > to the standard resource counters interface.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >
> > include/linux/res_counter.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > kernel/res_counter.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++--------------
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 6 +++---
> > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/res_counter.h b/include/linux/res_counter.h
> > index 731af71..0f9ee03 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/res_counter.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/res_counter.h
> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/cgroup.h>
> > +#include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
> >
> > /*
> > * The core object. the cgroup that wishes to account for some
> > @@ -23,10 +24,6 @@
> >
> > struct res_counter {
> > /*
> > - * the current resource consumption level
> > - */
> > - unsigned long long usage;
> > - /*
> > * the maximal value of the usage from the counter creation
> > */
> > unsigned long long max_usage;
> > @@ -48,6 +45,11 @@ struct res_counter {
> > */
> > spinlock_t lock;
> > /*
> > + * the current resource consumption level
> > + */
> > + struct percpu_counter usage;
> > + unsigned long long tmp_usage; /* Used by res_counter_member */
> > + /*
>
>
> - We should condier take following policy or not..
> * res_counter->usage is very strict now and it can exceeds res->limit.
> Then, we don't take a lock for res->limit at charge/uncharge.
> Maybe your code is on this policy. If so, plz write this somewhere.
>

Yep, I'll update the document and comments in the code.

> - We should take care that usage is now s64, not u64.

I am aware of that, but ideally we are not affected. Data types depend
on how we interpret them - for example if we check for < 0 or print it
out, etc. With usage we start at 0.

>
>
> > * Parent counter, used for hierarchial resource accounting
> > */
> > struct res_counter *parent;
> > @@ -133,7 +135,8 @@ void res_counter_uncharge(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val,
> >
> > static inline bool res_counter_limit_check_locked(struct res_counter *cnt)
> > {
> > - if (cnt->usage < cnt->limit)
> > + unsigned long long usage = percpu_counter_read_positive(&cnt->usage);
> > + if (usage < cnt->limit)
> > return true;
> >
> > return false;
> > @@ -141,7 +144,8 @@ static inline bool res_counter_limit_check_locked(struct res_counter *cnt)
> >
> > static inline bool res_counter_soft_limit_check_locked(struct res_counter *cnt)
> > {
> > - if (cnt->usage < cnt->soft_limit)
> > + unsigned long long usage = percpu_counter_read_positive(&cnt->usage);
> > + if (usage < cnt->soft_limit)
> > return true;
> >
> > return false;
> > @@ -157,15 +161,16 @@ static inline bool res_counter_soft_limit_check_locked(struct res_counter *cnt)
> > static inline unsigned long long
> > res_counter_soft_limit_excess(struct res_counter *cnt)
> > {
> > - unsigned long long excess;
> > + unsigned long long excess, usage;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > - if (cnt->usage <= cnt->soft_limit)
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > + usage = percpu_counter_read_positive(&cnt->usage);
> > + if (usage <= cnt->soft_limit)
> > excess = 0;
> > else
> > - excess = cnt->usage - cnt->soft_limit;
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > + excess = usage - cnt->soft_limit;
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > return excess;
> > }
> I'm not sure why local_irq_save()/restore() is required.
> Will this be called from interrupt context ?
>

No.. It might not be required, but in general, IIRC, most of the irq
protection is to protect against atomic reclaim.


> >
> > @@ -178,9 +183,9 @@ static inline bool res_counter_check_under_limit(struct res_counter *cnt)
> > bool ret;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > ret = res_counter_limit_check_locked(cnt);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -189,18 +194,19 @@ static inline bool res_counter_check_under_soft_limit(struct res_counter *cnt)
> > bool ret;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > ret = res_counter_soft_limit_check_locked(cnt);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > static inline void res_counter_reset_max(struct res_counter *cnt)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned long long usage = percpu_counter_read_positive(&cnt->usage);
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > - cnt->max_usage = cnt->usage;
> > + cnt->max_usage = usage;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -217,10 +223,11 @@ static inline int res_counter_set_limit(struct res_counter *cnt,
> > unsigned long long limit)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned long long usage = percpu_counter_read_positive(&cnt->usage);
> > int ret = -EBUSY;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->lock, flags);
> > - if (cnt->usage <= limit) {
> > + if (usage <= limit) {
> > cnt->limit = limit;
> > ret = 0;
> > }
> > diff --git a/kernel/res_counter.c b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > index 88faec2..730a60d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/res_counter.c
> > +++ b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> > void res_counter_init(struct res_counter *counter, struct res_counter *parent)
> > {
> > spin_lock_init(&counter->lock);
> > + percpu_counter_init(&counter->usage, 0);
> > counter->limit = RESOURCE_MAX;
> > counter->soft_limit = RESOURCE_MAX;
> > counter->parent = parent;
> > @@ -25,14 +26,17 @@ void res_counter_init(struct res_counter *counter, struct res_counter *parent)
> >
> > int res_counter_charge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val)
> > {
> > - if (counter->usage + val > counter->limit) {
> > + unsigned long long usage;
> > +
> > + usage = percpu_counter_read_positive(&counter->usage);
> > + if (usage + val > counter->limit) {
> > counter->failcnt++;
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> >
> > - counter->usage += val;
> > - if (counter->usage > counter->max_usage)
> > - counter->max_usage = counter->usage;
> > + __percpu_counter_add(&counter->usage, val, nr_cpu_ids * PAGE_SIZE);
>
> At first, this is res_counter and not only for memcg.
> you shouldn't use PAGE_SIZE here ;)

Good point, I wonder if I should go back to accounting via 1 instead
of PAGE_SIZE and scale internally.

>
> And, this "batch" value seems wrong. Should not be multiple of # of cpus.
>
> How about this ?
>
> /*
> * This is per-cpu error tolerance for res_counter's usage for memcg.
> * By this, max error in res_counter's usage will be
> * _RES_USAGE_ERROR_TOLERANCE_MEMCG * # of cpus.
> * This can be coufigure via boot opttion (or some...)
> *
> */
>
> /* 256k bytes per 8cpus. 1M per 32cpus. */
> #define __RES_USAGE_ERROR_TOLERANCE_MEMCG (8 * 4096)
>
> or some. (Above means 32M error in 1024 cpu system. But, I think admin of 1024 cpu system
> will not take care of Megabytes of memory.)
>

Yeah.. We'll need to do something like that.

>
>
> > + if (usage + val > counter->max_usage)
> > + counter->max_usage = (usage + val);
>
> Hmm, this part should be
>
> if (usage + val > counter->max_usage) {
> spin_lock()
> if (usage + val > counter->max_usage)
> counter->max_usage = usage +val;
> spin_unlock()
> }

Good point, max_usage needs to be protected.

>
> ?
>
>
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -49,7 +53,6 @@ int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val,
> > *soft_limit_fail_at = NULL;
> > local_irq_save(flags);
> > for (c = counter; c != NULL; c = c->parent) {
> > - spin_lock(&c->lock);
> > ret = res_counter_charge_locked(c, val);
> > /*
> > * With soft limits, we return the highest ancestor
> > @@ -58,7 +61,6 @@ int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val,
> > if (soft_limit_fail_at &&
> > !res_counter_soft_limit_check_locked(c))
> > *soft_limit_fail_at = c;
> > - spin_unlock(&c->lock);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > *limit_fail_at = c;
> > goto undo;
> > @@ -68,9 +70,7 @@ int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val,
> > goto done;
> > undo:
> > for (u = counter; u != c; u = u->parent) {
> > - spin_lock(&u->lock);
> > res_counter_uncharge_locked(u, val);
> > - spin_unlock(&u->lock);
> > }
> > done:
> > local_irq_restore(flags);
> > @@ -79,10 +79,13 @@ done:
> >
> > void res_counter_uncharge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val)
> > {
> > - if (WARN_ON(counter->usage < val))
> > - val = counter->usage;
> > + unsigned long long usage;
> > +
> > + usage = percpu_counter_read_positive(&counter->usage);
> > + if (WARN_ON((usage + nr_cpu_ids * PAGE_SIZE) < val))
> > + val = usage;
> >
> > - counter->usage -= val;
> > + percpu_counter_sub(&counter->usage, val);
> > }
> >
> > void res_counter_uncharge(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val,
> > @@ -93,12 +96,10 @@ void res_counter_uncharge(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val,
> >
> > local_irq_save(flags);
> > for (c = counter; c != NULL; c = c->parent) {
> > - spin_lock(&c->lock);
> > if (was_soft_limit_excess)
> > *was_soft_limit_excess =
> > !res_counter_soft_limit_check_locked(c);
> > res_counter_uncharge_locked(c, val);
> > - spin_unlock(&c->lock);
> > }
> > local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> For this part, I wonder local_irq_save() can be replaced wiht preempt_disable()...
>
>
> > }
> > @@ -109,7 +110,9 @@ res_counter_member(struct res_counter *counter, int member)
> > {
> > switch (member) {
> > case RES_USAGE:
> > - return &counter->usage;
> > + counter->tmp_usage =
> > + percpu_counter_read_positive(&counter->usage);
> > + return &counter->tmp_usage;
>
> I don't like to have tmp_usage in res_counter just for this purpose.
> Shouldn't we add
> s64 res_counter_usage(res);
> ?
>

I considered it, I'll see how to incorporate it without adding too
many special conditions in the code for usage

Thanks for the review!

--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-03 11:23    [W:0.056 / U:16.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site