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 :-)
