(2013/03/29 18:14), Glauber Costa wrote:
> When a new memcg is created, we need to open up room for its descriptors
> in all of the list_lrus that are marked per-memcg. The process is quite
> similar to the one we are using for the kmem caches: we initialize the
> new structures in an array indexed by kmemcg_id, and grow the array if
> needed. Key data like the size of the array will be shared between the
> kmem cache code and the list_lru code (they basically describe the same
> thing)
>
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/list_lru.h | 37 ++++++++++-
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 12 ++++
> lib/list_lru.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> mm/slab_common.c | 1 -
> 5 files changed, 285 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/list_lru.h b/include/linux/list_lru.h
> index 02796da..d6cf126 100644
> --- a/include/linux/list_lru.h
> +++ b/include/linux/list_lru.h
> @@ -16,12 +16,47 @@ struct list_lru_node {
> long nr_items;
> } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>
> +/*
> + * This is supposed to be M x N matrix, where M is kmem-limited memcg,
> + * and N is the number of nodes.
> + */
Could you add a comment that M can be changed and the array can be resized.
> +struct list_lru_array {
> + struct list_lru_node node[1];
> +};
> +
> struct list_lru {
> struct list_lru_node node[MAX_NUMNODES];
> nodemask_t active_nodes;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> + struct list_head lrus;
> + struct list_lru_array **memcg_lrus;
> +#endif
please add comments, for what ....
> };
>
> -int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru);
> +struct mem_cgroup;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +struct list_lru_array *lru_alloc_array(void);
> +int memcg_update_all_lrus(unsigned long num);
> +void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru);
> +void list_lru_destroy_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> +int __memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
> +#else
> +static inline void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +int __list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_enabled);
> +static inline int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + return __list_lru_init(lru, false);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int list_lru_init_memcg(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + return __list_lru_init(lru, true);
> +}
> +
> int list_lru_add(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item);
> int list_lru_del(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item);
> long list_lru_count_nodemask(struct list_lru *lru, nodemask_t *nodes_to_count);
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index 4c24249..ee3199d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/vm_event_item.h>
> #include <linux/hardirq.h>
> #include <linux/jump_label.h>
> +#include <linux/list_lru.h>
>
> struct mem_cgroup;
> struct page_cgroup;
> @@ -469,6 +470,12 @@ void memcg_update_array_size(int num_groups);
> struct kmem_cache *
> __memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp);
>
> +int memcg_new_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
> +int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
> +
> +int memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(struct list_lru *lru, int num_groups,
> + bool new_lru);
> +
> void mem_cgroup_destroy_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep);
> void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s);
>
> @@ -632,6 +639,11 @@ memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
> static inline void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> }
> +
> +static inline int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> #endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
> #endif /* _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H */
>
> diff --git a/lib/list_lru.c b/lib/list_lru.c
> index 0f08ed6..a9616a0 100644
> --- a/lib/list_lru.c
> +++ b/lib/list_lru.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/mm.h>
> #include <linux/list_lru.h>
> +#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
>
> int
> list_lru_add(
> @@ -184,18 +185,100 @@ list_lru_dispose_all(
> return total;
> }
>
> -int
> -list_lru_init(
> - struct list_lru *lru)
> +/*
> + * This protects the list of all LRU in the system. One only needs
> + * to take when registering an LRU, or when duplicating the list of lrus.
> + * Transversing an LRU can and should be done outside the lock
> + */
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> +static LIST_HEAD(all_memcg_lrus);
> +
> +static void list_lru_init_one(struct list_lru_node *lru)
> {
> + spin_lock_init(&lru->lock);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->list);
> + lru->nr_items = 0;
> +}
> +
> +struct list_lru_array *lru_alloc_array(void)
> +{
> + struct list_lru_array *lru_array;
> int i;
>
> - nodes_clear(lru->active_nodes);
> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++) {
> - spin_lock_init(&lru->node[i].lock);
> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->node[i].list);
> - lru->node[i].nr_items = 0;
> + lru_array = kzalloc(nr_node_ids * sizeof(struct list_lru_node),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
A nitpick...you can use kmalloc() here. All field will be overwritten.
> + if (!lru_array)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids ; i++)
> + list_lru_init_one(&lru_array->node[i]);
> +
> + return lru_array;
> +}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +int __memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->lrus);
> + mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> + list_add(&lru->lrus, &all_memcg_lrus);
> + ret = memcg_new_lru(lru);
> + mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> + return ret;
> +}
returns 0 at success ? what kind of error can be shown here ?
> +
> +int memcg_update_all_lrus(unsigned long num)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct list_lru *lru;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, lrus) {
> + ret = memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(lru, num, false);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> + }
> +out:
> + mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + if (!lru->memcg_lrus)
> + return;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> + list_del(&lru->lrus);
> + mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> +}
> +
> +void list_lru_destroy_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + struct list_lru *lru;
> + mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, lrus) {
> + kfree(lru->memcg_lrus[memcg_cache_id(memcg)]);
> + lru->memcg_lrus[memcg_cache_id(memcg)] = NULL;
> + /* everybody must beaware that this memcg is no longer valid */
> + wmb();
> }
> + mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +int __list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_enabled)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + nodes_clear(lru->active_nodes);
> + for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++)
> + list_lru_init_one(&lru->node[i]);
> +
> + if (memcg_enabled)
> + return memcg_init_lru(lru);
> return 0;
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_init);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__list_lru_init);
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index ecdae39..c6c90d8 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2988,16 +2988,30 @@ int memcg_update_cache_sizes(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> memcg_kmem_set_activated(memcg);
>
> ret = memcg_update_all_caches(num+1);
> - if (ret) {
> - ida_simple_remove(&kmem_limited_groups, num);
> - memcg_kmem_clear_activated(memcg);
> - return ret;
> - }
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> +
> + /*
> + * We should make sure that the array size is not updated until we are
> + * done; otherwise we have no easy way to know whether or not we should
> + * grow the array.
> + */
> + ret = memcg_update_all_lrus(num + 1);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
>
> memcg->kmemcg_id = num;
> +
> + memcg_update_array_size(num + 1);
> +
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&memcg->memcg_slab_caches);
> mutex_init(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
> +
> return 0;
> +out:
> + ida_simple_remove(&kmem_limited_groups, num);
> + memcg_kmem_clear_activated(memcg);
> + return ret;
When this failure can happens ? This happens only when the user
tries to set kmem_limit and doesn't affect kernel internal logic ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
