On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:07:02PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:41:51AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 01:52:44AM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:41:18PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > @@ -3117,15 +3095,24 @@ void __memcg_kmem_uncharge(struct page *page, int order)
> > > > css_put_many(&memcg->css, nr_pages);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -int __memcg_kmem_charge_subpage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, size_t size,
> > > > - gfp_t gfp)
> > > > +int obj_cgroup_charge(struct obj_cgroup *objcg, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
> > > > {
> > > > - return try_charge(memcg, gfp, size, true);
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (consume_obj_stock(objcg, nr_bytes))
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = try_charge(objcg->memcg, gfp, 1);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> >
> > > The second problem is also here. If a task belonging to a different memcg
> > > is scheduled on this cpu, most likely we will need to refill both stocks,
> > > even if we need only a small temporarily allocation.
> >
> > Yes, that's a good thing. The reason we have the per-cpu caches in the
> > first place is because most likely the same cgroup will perform
> > several allocations. Both the slab allocator and the page allocator
> > have per-cpu caches for the same reason. I don't really understand
> > what the argument is.
>
> I mean it seems strange (and most likely will show up in perf numbers)
> to move a page from one stock to another. Is there a reason why do you want
> to ask try_charge() and stock only a single page?
>
> Can we do the following instead?
>
> 1) add a boolean argument to try_charge() to bypass the consume_stock() call
> at the beginning and just go slow path immediately
> 2) use try_charge() with this argument set to true to fill the objc/subpage
> stock with MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH pages
No, think this through.
If you have disjunct caches for the page_counter, it means the cache
work cannot be shared. A slab allocation has to hit the page_counter,
and a subsequent page allocation has to hit it again; likewise, a slab
allocation cannot benefit from the caching of prior page allocations.
You're trading cheap, unlocked, cpu-local subtractions against costly
atomic RMW ops on shared cachelines. You also double the amount of
cached per-cpu memory and introduce a layering violation.
Hotpath (bytes cached)
stacked: disjunct:
consume_subpage_stock() try_charge()
consume_subpage_stock()
Warmpath (pages cached)
stacked: disjunct:
consume_subpage_stock() try_charge()
try_charge() consume_subpage_stock()
consume_stock() page_counter_charge()
refill_subpage_stock() refill_subpage_stock()
Coldpath (nothing cached)
stacked: disjunct
consume_subpage_stock() try_charge()
try_charge() consume_subpage_stock()
consume_stock() page_counter_charge()
page_counter_charge() refill_subpage_stock()
refill_stock()
refill_subpage_stock()
