lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mmotm 3/3] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:03:19 +0100, Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:21:32PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:15:49 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed.
> > > Let's try how we can write a code in clean way. (we have time ;)
> > > For now, to me, IRQ disabling while lock_page_cgroup() seems to be a little
> > > over killing. What I really want is lockless code...but it seems impossible
> > > under current implementation.
> > >
> > > I wonder the fact "the page is never unchareged under us" can give us some chances
> > > ...Hmm.
> > >
> >
> > How about this ? Basically, I don't like duplicating information...so,
> > # of new pcg_flags may be able to be reduced.
> >
> > I'm glad this can be a hint for Andrea-san.
> >
> > ==
> > ---
> > include/linux/page_cgroup.h | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Mar2/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- mmotm-2.6.33-Mar2.orig/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
> > +++ mmotm-2.6.33-Mar2/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
> > @@ -39,6 +39,11 @@ enum {
> > PCG_CACHE, /* charged as cache */
> > PCG_USED, /* this object is in use. */
> > PCG_ACCT_LRU, /* page has been accounted for */
> > + PCG_MIGRATE_LOCK, /* used for mutual execution of account migration */
> > + PCG_ACCT_DIRTY,
> > + PCG_ACCT_WB,
> > + PCG_ACCT_WB_TEMP,
> > + PCG_ACCT_UNSTABLE,
> > };
> >
> > #define TESTPCGFLAG(uname, lname) \
> > @@ -73,6 +78,23 @@ CLEARPCGFLAG(AcctLRU, ACCT_LRU)
> > TESTPCGFLAG(AcctLRU, ACCT_LRU)
> > TESTCLEARPCGFLAG(AcctLRU, ACCT_LRU)
> >
> > +SETPCGFLAG(AcctDirty, ACCT_DIRTY);
> > +CLEARPCGFLAG(AcctDirty, ACCT_DIRTY);
> > +TESTPCGFLAG(AcctDirty, ACCT_DIRTY);
> > +
> > +SETPCGFLAG(AcctWB, ACCT_WB);
> > +CLEARPCGFLAG(AcctWB, ACCT_WB);
> > +TESTPCGFLAG(AcctWB, ACCT_WB);
> > +
> > +SETPCGFLAG(AcctWBTemp, ACCT_WB_TEMP);
> > +CLEARPCGFLAG(AcctWBTemp, ACCT_WB_TEMP);
> > +TESTPCGFLAG(AcctWBTemp, ACCT_WB_TEMP);
> > +
> > +SETPCGFLAG(AcctUnstableNFS, ACCT_UNSTABLE);
> > +CLEARPCGFLAG(AcctUnstableNFS, ACCT_UNSTABLE);
> > +TESTPCGFLAG(AcctUnstableNFS, ACCT_UNSTABLE);
> > +
> > +
> > static inline int page_cgroup_nid(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> > {
> > return page_to_nid(pc->page);
> > @@ -82,7 +104,9 @@ static inline enum zone_type page_cgroup
> > {
> > return page_zonenum(pc->page);
> > }
> > -
> > +/*
> > + * lock_page_cgroup() should not be held under mapping->tree_lock
> > + */
> > static inline void lock_page_cgroup(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> > {
> > bit_spin_lock(PCG_LOCK, &pc->flags);
> > @@ -93,6 +117,24 @@ static inline void unlock_page_cgroup(st
> > bit_spin_unlock(PCG_LOCK, &pc->flags);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Lock order is
> > + * lock_page_cgroup()
> > + * lock_page_cgroup_migrate()
> > + * This lock is not be lock for charge/uncharge but for account moving.
> > + * i.e. overwrite pc->mem_cgroup. The lock owner should guarantee by itself
> > + * the page is uncharged while we hold this.
> > + */
> > +static inline void lock_page_cgroup_migrate(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> > +{
> > + bit_spin_lock(PCG_MIGRATE_LOCK, &pc->flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void unlock_page_cgroup_migrate(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> > +{
> > + bit_spin_unlock(PCG_MIGRATE_LOCK, &pc->flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > #else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR */
> > struct page_cgroup;
> >
> > Index: mmotm-2.6.33-Mar2/mm/memcontrol.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- mmotm-2.6.33-Mar2.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ mmotm-2.6.33-Mar2/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -87,6 +87,10 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
> > MEM_CGROUP_STAT_PGPGOUT_COUNT, /* # of pages paged out */
> > MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SWAPOUT, /* # of pages, swapped out */
> > MEM_CGROUP_EVENTS, /* incremented at every pagein/pageout */
> > + MEM_CGROUP_STAT_DIRTY,
> > + MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK,
> > + MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK_TEMP,
> > + MEM_CGROUP_STAT_UNSTABLE_NFS,
> >
> > MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
> > };
> > @@ -1360,6 +1364,86 @@ done:
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > + * Update file cache's status for memcg. Before calling this,
> > + * mapping->tree_lock should be held and preemption is disabled.
> > + * Then, it's guarnteed that the page is not uncharged while we
> > + * access page_cgroup. We can make use of that.
> > + */
> > +void mem_cgroup_update_stat_locked(struct page *page, int idx, bool set)
> > +{
> > + struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > + struct mem_cgroup *mem;
> > +
> > + pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > + /* Not accounted ? */
> > + if (!PageCgroupUsed(pc))
> > + return;
> > + lock_page_cgroup_migrate(pc);
> > + /*
> > + * It's guarnteed that this page is never uncharged.
> > + * The only racy problem is moving account among memcgs.
> > + */
> > + switch (idx) {
> > + case MEM_CGROUP_STAT_DIRTY:
> > + if (set)
> > + SetPageCgroupAcctDirty(pc);
> > + else
> > + ClearPageCgroupAcctDirty(pc);
> > + break;
> > + case MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK:
> > + if (set)
> > + SetPageCgroupAcctWB(pc);
> > + else
> > + ClearPageCgroupAcctWB(pc);
> > + break;
> > + case MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK_TEMP:
> > + if (set)
> > + SetPageCgroupAcctWBTemp(pc);
> > + else
> > + ClearPageCgroupAcctWBTemp(pc);
> > + break;
> > + case MEM_CGROUP_STAT_UNSTABLE_NFS:
> > + if (set)
> > + SetPageCgroupAcctUnstableNFS(pc);
> > + else
> > + ClearPageCgroupAcctUnstableNFS(pc);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + BUG();
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > + if (set)
> > + __this_cpu_inc(mem->stat->count[idx]);
> > + else
> > + __this_cpu_dec(mem->stat->count[idx]);
> > + unlock_page_cgroup_migrate(pc);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void move_acct_information(struct mem_cgroup *from,
> > + struct mem_cgroup *to,
> > + struct page_cgroup *pc)
> > +{
> > + /* preemption is disabled, migration_lock is held. */
> > + if (PageCgroupAcctDirty(pc)) {
> > + __this_cpu_dec(from->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_DIRTY]);
> > + __this_cpu_inc(to->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_DIRTY]);
> > + }
> > + if (PageCgroupAcctWB(pc)) {
> > + __this_cpu_dec(from->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK]);
> > + __this_cpu_inc(to->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK]);
> > + }
> > + if (PageCgroupAcctWBTemp(pc)) {
> > + __this_cpu_dec(from->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK_TEMP]);
> > + __this_cpu_inc(to->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_WBACK_TEMP]);
> > + }
> > + if (PageCgroupAcctUnstableNFS(pc)) {
> > + __this_cpu_dec(from->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_UNSTABLE_NFS]);
> > + __this_cpu_inc(to->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_UNSTABLE_NFS]);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > * size of first charge trial. "32" comes from vmscan.c's magic value.
> > * TODO: maybe necessary to use big numbers in big irons.
> > */
> > @@ -1794,15 +1878,16 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_move_account(st
> > VM_BUG_ON(!PageCgroupUsed(pc));
> > VM_BUG_ON(pc->mem_cgroup != from);
> >
> > + preempt_disable();
> > + lock_page_cgroup_migrate(pc);
> > page = pc->page;
> > if (page_mapped(page) && !PageAnon(page)) {
> > /* Update mapped_file data for mem_cgroup */
> > - preempt_disable();
> > __this_cpu_dec(from->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
> > __this_cpu_inc(to->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
> > - preempt_enable();
> > }
> > mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(from, pc, false);
> > + move_acct_information(from, to, pc);
>
> Kame-san, a question. According to is_target_pte_for_mc() it seems we
> don't move file pages across cgroups for now. If !PageAnon(page) we just
> return 0 and the page won't be selected for migration in
> mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range().
>
You're right. It's my TODO to move file pages at task migration.

> So, if I've understood well the code is correct in perspective, but
> right now it's unnecessary. File pages are not moved on task migration
> across cgroups and, at the moment, there's no way for file page
> accounted statistics to go negative.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
__mem_cgroup_move_account() will be called not only at task migration
but also at rmdir, so I think it would be better to handle file pages anyway.


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-04 00:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans