On Sat 31-07-21 10:29:52, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2021/7/30 14:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 29-07-21 20:06:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 08:57:52PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> >>> Since percpu_charge_mutex is only used inside drain_all_stock(), we can
> >>> narrow the scope of percpu_charge_mutex by moving it here.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>> index 6580c2381a3e..a03e24e57cd9 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >>> @@ -2050,7 +2050,6 @@ struct memcg_stock_pcp {
> >>> #define FLUSHING_CACHED_CHARGE 0
> >>> };
> >>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct memcg_stock_pcp, memcg_stock);
> >>> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex);
> >>>
> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> >>> static void drain_obj_stock(struct obj_stock *stock);
> >>> @@ -2209,6 +2208,7 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
> >>> */
> >>> static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
> >>> {
> >>> + static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex);
> >>> int cpu, curcpu;
> >>
> >> It's considered a good practice to protect data instead of code paths. After
> >> the proposed change it becomes obvious that the opposite is done here: the mutex
> >> is used to prevent a simultaneous execution of the code of the drain_all_stock()
> >> function.
> >
> > The purpose of the lock was indeed to orchestrate callers more than any
> > data structure consistency.
> >
> >> Actually we don't need a mutex here: nobody ever sleeps on it. So I'd replace
> >> it with a simple atomic variable or even a single bitfield. Then the change will
> >> be better justified, IMO.
> >
> > Yes, mutex can be replaced by an atomic in a follow up patch.
> >
>
> Thanks for both of you. It's a really good suggestion. What do you mean is something like below？
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 616d1a72ece3..508a96e80980 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2208,11 +2208,11 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
> */
> static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
> {
> - static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_charge_mutex);
> int cpu, curcpu;
> + static atomic_t drain_all_stocks = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
> /* If someone's already draining, avoid adding running more workers. */
> - if (!mutex_trylock(&percpu_charge_mutex))
> + if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&drain_all_stocks))
> return;
> /*
> * Notify other cpus that system-wide "drain" is running
> @@ -2244,7 +2244,7 @@ static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
> }
> }
> put_cpu();
> - mutex_unlock(&percpu_charge_mutex);
> + atomic_dec(&drain_all_stocks);
Yes this would work. I would just s@drain_all_stocks@drainers@ or
something similar to better express the intention.
> }
>
> static int memcg_hotplug_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
