在 2013-7-12 晚上9:25，"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@xxxxxxx>写道：
>
> On Fri 12-07-13 20:59:24, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> > Add cc to Glauber
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sat 06-07-13 01:33:43, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> > >> From: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >> If memcg is enabled and no non-root memcg exists, all allocated
> > >> pages belongs to root_mem_cgroup and wil go through root memcg
> > >> statistics routines. So in order to reduce overheads after adding
> > >> memcg dirty/writeback accounting in hot paths, we use jump label to
> > >> patch mem_cgroup_{begin,end}_update_page_stat() in or out when not
> > >> used.
> > >
> > > I do not think this is enough. How much do you save? One atomic read.
> > > This doesn't seem like a killer.
> > >
> > > I hoped we could simply not account at all and move counters to the root
> > > cgroup once the label gets enabled.
> >
> > I have thought of this approach before, but it would probably run into
> > another issue, e.g, each zone has a percpu stock named ->pageset to
> > optimize the increment and decrement operations, and I haven't figure out a
> > simpler and cheaper approach to handle that stock numbers if moving global
> > counters to root cgroup, maybe we can just leave them and can afford the
> > approximation?
>
> You can read per-cpu diffs during transition and tolerate small
> races. Or maybe simply summing NR_FILE_DIRTY for all zones would be
> sufficient.
Thanks, I'll have a try.
>
> > Glauber have already done lots of works here, in his previous patchset he
> > also tried to move some global stats to root (
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cgroups/6291). May I steal
> > some of your ideas here, Glauber? :P
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Besides that, the current patch is racy. Consider what happens when:
> > >
> > > mem_cgroup_begin_update_page_stat
> > > arm_inuse_keys
> > > mem_cgroup_move_account
> > > mem_cgroup_move_account_page_stat
> > > mem_cgroup_end_update_page_stat
> > >
> > > The race window is small of course but it is there. I guess we need
> > > rcu_read_lock at least.
> >
> > Yes, you're right. I'm afraid we need to take care of the racy in the next
> > updates as well. But mem_cgroup_begin/end_update_page_stat() already have
> > rcu lock, so here we maybe only need a synchronize_rcu() after changing
> > memcg_inuse_key?
>
> Your patch doesn't take rcu_read_lock. synchronize_rcu might work but I
> am still not sure this would help to prevent from the overhead which
> IMHO comes from the accounting not a single atomic_read + rcu_read_lock
> which is the hot path of mem_cgroup_{begin,end}_update_page_stat.
I means I'll try to zero out accounting overhead in next version, but the race will probably also occur in that case.
Thanks!
>
> [...]
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs