On Tue 04-02-14 10:55:08, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:28:55PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Johannes Weiner has pointed out that __mem_cgroup_try_charge duplicates
> > try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm for charges which came without a memcg. The
> > only reason seems to be a tiny optimization when css_tryget is not
> > called if the charge can be consumed from the stock. Nevertheless
> > css_tryget is very cheap since it has been reworked to use per-cpu
> > counting so this optimization doesn't give us anything these days.
> >
> > So let's drop the code duplication so that the code is more readable.
> > While we are at it also remove a very confusing comment in
> > try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 49 ++++++++-----------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 53385cd4e6f0..042e4ff36c05 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1081,11 +1081,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >
> > if (!mm)
> > return NULL;
>
> While you're at it, this check also seems unnecessary.
Yes, it will be removed in a later patch. I wanted to have it in a
separate patch for a better bisectability just in case I have really
missed mm-might-by-NULL case.
> > - /*
> > - * Because we have no locks, mm->owner's may be being moved to other
> > - * cgroup. We use css_tryget() here even if this looks
> > - * pessimistic (rather than adding locks here).
> > - */
> > +
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > do {
> > memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(rcu_dereference(mm->owner));
> > @@ -2759,45 +2755,15 @@ again:
> > goto done;
> > css_get(&memcg->css);
> > } else {
> > - struct task_struct *p;
> > -
> > - rcu_read_lock();
> > - p = rcu_dereference(mm->owner);
> > - /*
> > - * Because we don't have task_lock(), "p" can exit.
> > - * In that case, "memcg" can point to root or p can be NULL with
> > - * race with swapoff. Then, we have small risk of mis-accouning.
> > - * But such kind of mis-account by race always happens because
> > - * we don't have cgroup_mutex(). It's overkill and we allo that
> > - * small race, here.
> > - * (*) swapoff at el will charge against mm-struct not against
> > - * task-struct. So, mm->owner can be NULL.
> > - */
> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(p);
> > - if (!memcg)
> > + memcg = try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(mm);
> > + if (!memcg) {
> > memcg = root_mem_cgroup;
> > - if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)) {
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > - goto done;
> > - }
> > - if (consume_stock(memcg, nr_pages)) {
> > - /*
> > - * It seems dagerous to access memcg without css_get().
> > - * But considering how consume_stok works, it's not
> > - * necessary. If consume_stock success, some charges
> > - * from this memcg are cached on this cpu. So, we
> > - * don't need to call css_get()/css_tryget() before
> > - * calling consume_stock().
> > - */
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > goto done;
> > }
> > - /* after here, we may be blocked. we need to get refcnt */
> > - if (!css_tryget(&memcg->css)) {
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > - goto again;
> > - }
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > + if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > + goto done_put;
> > + if (consume_stock(memcg, nr_pages))
> > + goto done_put;
>
> These two are actually the same in the if (*ptr) branch.
True, I just wanted to have the patch minimalistic and do just a single
thing here. Duplicity will vanish in the next patch.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>