On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:10 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:12:50 -0700
> Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Now, memory cgroup has an ID per cgroup and make use of it at
>> > - hierarchy walk,
>> > - swap recording.
>> >
>> > This patch is for making more use of it. The final purpose is
>> > to replace page_cgroup->mem_cgroup's pointer to an unsigned short.
>> >
>> > This patch caches a pointer of memcg in an array. By this, we
>> > don't have to call css_lookup() which requires radix-hash walk.
>> > This saves some amount of memory footprint at lookup memcg via id.
>> >
>> > Changelog: 20100804
>> > - fixed description in init/Kconfig
>> >
>> > Changelog: 20100730
>> > - fixed rcu_read_unlock() placement.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > init/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++
>> > mm/memcontrol.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > Index: mmotm-0727/mm/memcontrol.c
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- mmotm-0727.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
>> > +++ mmotm-0727/mm/memcontrol.c
>> > @@ -292,6 +292,30 @@ static bool move_file(void)
>> > &mc.to->move_charge_at_immigrate);
>> > }
>> >
>> > +/* 0 is unused */
>> > +static atomic_t mem_cgroup_num;
>> > +#define NR_MEMCG_GROUPS (CONFIG_MEM_CGROUP_MAX_GROUPS + 1)
>> > +static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroups[NR_MEMCG_GROUPS] __read_mostly;
>> > +
>> > +static struct mem_cgroup *id_to_memcg(unsigned short id)
>> > +{
>> > + /*
>> > + * This array is set to NULL when mem_cgroup is freed.
>> > + * IOW, there are no more references && rcu_synchronized().
>> > + * This lookup-caching is safe.
>> > + */
>> > + if (unlikely(!mem_cgroups[id])) {
>> > + struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>> > +
>> > + rcu_read_lock();
>> > + css = css_lookup(&mem_cgroup_subsys, id);
>> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>> > + if (!css)
>> > + return NULL;
>> > + mem_cgroups[id] = container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);
>> > + }
>> > + return mem_cgroups[id];
>> > +}
>>
>> I am worried that id may be larger than CONFIG_MEM_CGROUP_MAX_GROUPS and
>> cause an illegal array index. I see that
>> mem_cgroup_uncharge_swapcache() uses css_id() to compute 'id'.
>> mem_cgroup_num ensures that there are never more than
>> CONFIG_MEM_CGROUP_MAX_GROUPS memcg active. But do we have guarantee
>> that the that all of the css_id of each active memcg are less than
>> NR_MEMCG_GROUPS?
>>
> Yes. kernel/cgroup.c's ID assign routine use the smallest number, always.
>
>
>
>> > /*
>> > * Maximum loops in mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(), used for soft
>> > * limit reclaim to prevent infinite loops, if they ever occur.
>> > @@ -1824,18 +1848,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(str
>> > * it's concern. (dropping refcnt from swap can be called against removed
>> > * memcg.)
>> > */
>> > -static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id)
>> > -{
>> > - struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>> >
>> > - /* ID 0 is unused ID */
>> > - if (!id)
>> > - return NULL;
>> > - css = css_lookup(&mem_cgroup_subsys, id);
>> > - if (!css)
>> > - return NULL;
>> > - return container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);
>> > -}
>> >
>> > struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
>> > {
>> > @@ -1856,7 +1869,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_fr
>> > ent.val = page_private(page);
>> > id = lookup_swap_cgroup(ent);
>> > rcu_read_lock();
>> > - mem = mem_cgroup_lookup(id);
>> > + mem = id_to_memcg(id);
>> > if (mem && !css_tryget(&mem->css))
>> > mem = NULL;
>> > rcu_read_unlock();
>> > @@ -2208,7 +2221,7 @@ __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(struct
>> >
>> > id = swap_cgroup_record(ent, 0);
>> > rcu_read_lock();
>> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_lookup(id);
>> > + memcg = id_to_memcg(id);
>> > if (memcg) {
>> > /*
>> > * This recorded memcg can be obsolete one. So, avoid
>> > @@ -2472,7 +2485,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_
>> >
>> > id = swap_cgroup_record(ent, 0);
>> > rcu_read_lock();
>> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_lookup(id);
>> > + memcg = id_to_memcg(id);
>> > if (memcg) {
>> > /*
>> > * We uncharge this because swap is freed.
>> > @@ -3988,6 +4001,9 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_all
>> > struct mem_cgroup *mem;
>> > int size = sizeof(struct mem_cgroup);
>> >
>> > + if (atomic_read(&mem_cgroup_num) == NR_MEMCG_GROUPS)
>> > + return NULL;
>> > +
>>
>> I think that multiple tasks to be simultaneously running
>> mem_cgroup_create(). Therefore more than NR_MEMCG_GROUPS memcg may be
>> created.
>>
>
> No. cgroup_mutex() is held.
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>
I see that now. Thank you clarification. I am doing some testing on
the patches now.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href