Re: [PATCH v1 6/9] memcg: sleep during flushing stats in safe contexts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:06 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:45:19AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:35 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:16:35AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > >  void mem_cgroup_flush_stats_ratelimited(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >       if (time_after64(jiffies_64, READ_ONCE(flush_next_time)))
> > > > -             mem_cgroup_flush_stats();
> > > > +             mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic();
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > This should probably be mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic_ratelimited().
> > >
> > > (Whee, kinda long, but that's alright. Very specialized caller...)
> >
> > It should, but the following patch makes it non-atomic anyway, so I
> > thought I wouldn't clutter the diff by renaming it here and then
> > reverting it back in the next patch.
> >
> > There is an argument for maintaining a clean history tho in case the
> > next patch is reverted separately (which is the reason I put it in a
> > separate patch to begin with) -- so perhaps I should rename it here to
> > mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic_ratelimited () and back to
> > mem_cgroup_flush_stats_ratelimited() in the next patch, just for
> > consistency?
>
> Sounds good to me. It's pretty minor churn.

Ack. Will do so for v2. Thanks!

>
> > > Btw, can you guys think of a reason against moving the threshold check
> > > into the common function? It would then apply to the time-limited
> > > flushes as well, but that shouldn't hurt anything. This would make the
> > > code even simpler:
> >
> > I think the point of having the threshold check outside the common
> > function is that the periodic flusher always flushes, regardless of
> > the threshold, to keep rstat flushing from critical contexts as cheap
> > as possible.
>
> Good point. Yeah, let's keep it separate then.

Agreed.

>
> > > > @@ -2845,7 +2845,7 @@ static void prepare_scan_count(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> > > >        * Flush the memory cgroup stats, so that we read accurate per-memcg
> > > >        * lruvec stats for heuristics.
> > > >        */
> > > > -     mem_cgroup_flush_stats();
> > > > +     mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic();
> > >
> > > I'm thinking this one could be non-atomic as well. It's called fairly
> > > high up in reclaim without any locks held.
> >
> > A later patch does exactly that. I put making the reclaim and refault
> > paths non-atomic in separate patches to easily revert them if we see a
> > regression. Let me know if this is too defensive and if you'd rather
> > have them squashed.
>
> No, good call. I should have just looked ahead first :-)




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux