On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:16:09AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Since exceeded unused cached charges would add pressure to
> mem_cgroup_do_charge, more overhead would burn cpu cycles when
> mem_cgroup_do_charge cause page reclaim or even OOM be triggered
> just for such exceeded unused cached charges. Add MAX_CHARGE_BATCH
> to limit max cached charges.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 0e092eb..1ff317a 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1954,6 +1954,14 @@ void mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(struct page *page,
> * TODO: maybe necessary to use big numbers in big irons.
> */
> #define CHARGE_BATCH 32U
> +
> +/*
> + * Max size of charge stock. Since exceeded unused cached charges would
> + * add pressure to mem_cgroup_do_charge which will cause page reclaim or
> + * even oom be triggered.
> + */
> +#define MAX_CHARGE_BATCH 1024U
> +
> struct memcg_stock_pcp {
> struct mem_cgroup *cached; /* this never be root cgroup */
> unsigned int nr_pages;
> @@ -2250,6 +2258,7 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mm_struct *mm,
> unsigned int batch = max(CHARGE_BATCH, nr_pages);
> int nr_oom_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> + struct memcg_stock_pcp *stock;
> int ret;
>
> /*
> @@ -2320,6 +2329,13 @@ again:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> + stock = &get_cpu_var(memcg_stock);
> + if (memcg == stock->cached && stock->nr_pages) {
> + if (stock->nr_pages > MAX_CHARGE_BATCH)
> + batch = nr_pages;
> + }
> + put_cpu_var(memcg_stock);
The only way excessive stock can build up is if the charging task gets
rescheduled, after trying to consume stock a few lines above, to a cpu
it was running on when it built up stock in the past.
consume_stock()
memcg != stock->cached:
return false
do_charge()
<reschedule>
refill_stock()
memcg == stock->cached:
stock->nr_pages += nr_pages
It's very unlikely and a single call into target reclaim will drain
all stock of the memcg, so this will self-correct quickly.
And your patch won't change any of that.
What you /could/ do is stick that check into refill_stock() and invoke
res_counter_uncharge() if it gets excessive. But I really don't see a
practical problem here...
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>