lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: cgroup: rmdir() does not complete
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:16:46 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:04:31 +0100 (BST)
> Mark Hills <mark@pogo.org.uk> wrote:
> > The report on the spinning process (23586) is dominated by calls from
> > mem_cgroup_force_empty.
> >
> > It seems to show lru_add_drain_all and drain_all_stock_sync are causing
> > the load (I assume drain_all_stock_sync has been optimised out). But I
> > don't think this is as important as what causes the spin.
> >
>
> I noticed you use FUSE and it seems there is a problem in FUSE v.s. memcg.
> I wrote a patch (onto 2.6.36 but can be applied..)
>
Nice catch!

> Could you try this ? I'm sorry I don't use FUSE system and can't test
> right now.
>
Sorry, I can't either.

> ==
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>
> memory cgroup catches all pages which is added to radix-tree and
> assumes the pages will be added to LRU, somewhere.
> But there are pages which not on LRU but on radix-tree. Then,
> force_empty cannot find them and cannot finish ->pre_destroy(), rmdir
> operations.
>
> This patch adds __GFP_NOMEMCGROUP and avoids unnecessary, out-of-control
> pages are registered to memory cgroup.
>
> Note: This gfp flag can be used for shmem handling, which now uses
> complicated heuristics.
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> fs/fuse/dev.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> include/linux/gfp.h | 7 +++++++
> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.36-rc3/fs/fuse/dev.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.36-rc3.orig/fs/fuse/dev.c
> +++ linux-2.6.36-rc3/fs/fuse/dev.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include <linux/pipe_fs_i.h>
> #include <linux/swap.h>
> #include <linux/splice.h>
> +#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
>
> MODULE_ALIAS_MISCDEV(FUSE_MINOR);
> MODULE_ALIAS("devname:fuse");
> @@ -683,6 +684,7 @@ static int fuse_try_move_page(struct fus
> struct pipe_buffer *buf = cs->pipebufs;
> struct address_space *mapping;
> pgoff_t index;
> + gfp_t mask = GFP_KERNEL;
>
> unlock_request(cs->fc, cs->req);
> fuse_copy_finish(cs);
> @@ -732,7 +734,14 @@ static int fuse_try_move_page(struct fus
> remove_from_page_cache(oldpage);
> page_cache_release(oldpage);
>
> - err = add_to_page_cache_locked(newpage, mapping, index, GFP_KERNEL);
> + /*
> + * not-on-LRU pages are out of control. So, add to root cgroup.
> + * See mm/memcontrol.c for details.
> + */
> + if (buf->flags & PIPE_BUF_FLAG_LRU)
> + mask |= __GFP_NOMEMCGROUP;
> +
> + err = add_to_page_cache_locked(newpage, mapping, index, mask);
> if (err) {
> printk(KERN_WARNING "fuse_try_move_page: failed to add page");
> goto out_fallback_unlock;
> Index: linux-2.6.36-rc3/include/linux/gfp.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.36-rc3.orig/include/linux/gfp.h
> +++ linux-2.6.36-rc3/include/linux/gfp.h
> @@ -60,6 +60,13 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> #define __GFP_NOTRACK ((__force gfp_t)0)
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
> +#define __GFP_NOMEMCGROUP ((__force gfp_t)0x400000u)
> + /* Don't track by memory cgroup */
> +#else
> +#define __GFP_NOMEMCGROUP ((__force gfp_t)0)
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * This may seem redundant, but it's a way of annotating false positives vs.
> * allocations that simply cannot be supported (e.g. page tables).
> Index: linux-2.6.36-rc3/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.36-rc3.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ linux-2.6.36-rc3/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2114,7 +2114,7 @@ int mem_cgroup_cache_charge(struct page
>
> if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> return 0;
> - if (PageCompound(page))
> + if (PageCompound(page) || (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMCGROUP))
> return 0;
> /*
> * Corner case handling. This is called from add_to_page_cache()
>
The comments above says "not-on-LRU pages are out of control. So, add to root cgroup.".
But this change means that we don't charge these pages at all.

Should it be:

if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMCGROUP))
mm = &init_mm;

?
Or, change the comment ?


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-10 06:13    [W:0.055 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site