On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:27:56PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 11-02-13 14:58:24, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:29:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 11-02-13 12:56:19, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:16:49PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > Maybe we could keep the counter per memcg but that would mean that we > > > > > would need to go up the hierarchy as well. We wouldn't have to go over > > > > > node-zone-priority cleanup so it would be much more lightweight. > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure this is necessarily better than explicit cleanup because > > > > > it brings yet another kind of generation number to the game but I guess > > > > > I can live with it if people really thing the relaxed way is much > > > > > better. > > > > > What do you think about the patch below (untested yet)? > > > > > > > > Better, but I think you can get rid of both locks: > > > > > > What is the other lock you have in mind. > > > > The iter lock itself. I mean, multiple reclaimers can still race but > > there won't be any corruption (if you make iter->dead_count a long, > > setting it happens atomically, we nly need the memcg->dead_count to be > > an atomic because of the inc) and the worst that could happen is that > > a reclaim starts at the wrong point in hierarchy, right? > > The lack of synchronization basically means that 2 parallel reclaimers > can reclaim every group exactly once (ideally) or up to each group > twice in the worst case. > So the exclusion was quite comfortable. It's quite unlikely, though. Don't forget that they actually reclaim in between, I just can't see them line up perfectly and race to the iterator at the same time repeatedly. It's more likely to happen at the higher priority levels where less reclaim happens, and then it's not a big deal anyway. With lower priority levels, when the glitches would be more problematic, they also become even less likely. > > But as you said in the changelog that introduced the lock, it's never > > actually been a practical problem. > > That is true but those bugs would be subtle though so I wouldn't be > opposed to prevent from them before we get burnt. But if you think that > we should keep the previous semantic I can drop that patch. I just think that the problem is unlikely and not that big of a deal. > > You just need to put the wmb back in place, so that we never see the > > dead_count give the green light while the cached position is stale, or > > we'll tryget random memory. > > > > > > mem_cgroup_iter: > > > > rcu_read_lock() > > > > if atomic_read(&root->dead_count) == iter->dead_count: > > > > smp_rmb() > > > > if tryget(iter->position): > > > > position = iter->position > > > > memcg = find_next(postion) > > > > css_put(position) > > > > iter->position = memcg > > > > smp_wmb() /* Write position cache BEFORE marking it uptodate */ > > > > iter->dead_count = atomic_read(&root->dead_count) > > > > rcu_read_unlock() > > > > > > Updated patch bellow: > > > > Cool, thanks. I hope you don't find it too ugly anymore :-) > > It's getting trick and you know how people love when you have to play > and rely on atomics with memory barriers... My bumper sticker reads "I don't believe in mutual exclusion" (the kernel hacker's version of smile for the red light camera). I mean, you were the one complaining about the lock... > > That way, if the dead count gives the go-ahead, you KNOW that the > > position cache is valid, because it has been updated first. > > OK, you are right. We can live without css_tryget because dead_count is > either OK which means that css would be alive at least this rcu period > (and RCU walk would be safe as well) or it is incremented which means > that we have started css_offline already and then css is dead already. > So css_tryget can be dropped. Not quite :) The dead_count check is for completed destructions, but the try_get is needed to detect a race with an ongoing destruction. Basically, the dead_count verifies the iterator pointer is valid (and the rcu reader lock keeps it that way), the try_get verifies that the object pointed to is still alive. -- 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>