On Tue 23-09-14 13:05:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> How about the following update? Don't be thrown by the
> page_counter_cancel(), I went back to it until we find something more
> suitable. But as long as it's documented and has only 1.5 callsites,
> it shouldn't matter all that much TBH.
>
> Thanks for your invaluable feedback so far, and sorry if the original
> patch was hard to review. I'll try to break it up, to me it's usually
> easier to verify new functions by looking at the callers in the same
> patch, but I can probably remove the res_counter in a follow-up patch.
The original patch was really huge and rather hard to review. Having
res_counter removal in a separate patch would be definitely helpful.
I would even lobby to have the new page_counter in a separate patch with
the detailed description of the semantic and expected usage. Lockless
schemes are always tricky and hard to review.
[...]
> @@ -98,37 +121,44 @@ int page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter,
> struct page_counter *c;
>
> for (c = counter; c; c = c->parent) {
> - for (;;) {
> - long count;
> - long new;
> -
> - count = atomic_long_read(&c->count);
> -
> - new = count + nr_pages;
> - if (new > c->limit) {
> - c->failcnt++;
> - *fail = c;
> - goto failed;
> - }
> -
> - if (atomic_long_cmpxchg(&c->count, count, new) != count)
> - continue;
> -
> - if (new > c->watermark)
> - c->watermark = new;
> + long new;
>
> - break;
> + new = atomic_long_add_return(nr_pages, &c->count);
> + if (new > c->limit) {
> + atomic_long_sub(nr_pages, &c->count);
> + /*
> + * This is racy, but the failcnt is only a
> + * ballpark metric anyway.
> + */
> + c->failcnt++;
> + *fail = c;
> + goto failed;
> }
I like this much more because the retry loop might lead to starvation.
As you pointed out in the other email this implementation might lead
to premature reclaim but I would find the former issue more probable
because it might happen even when we are far away from the limit (e.g.
in unlimited - root - memcg).
> + /*
> + * This is racy, but with the per-cpu caches on top
> + * this is a ballpark metric as well, and with lazy
> + * cache reclaim, the majority of workloads peg the
> + * watermark to the group limit soon after launch.
> + */
> + if (new > c->watermark)
> + c->watermark = new;
> }
> return 0;
Btw. are you planning to post another version (possibly split up)
anytime soon so it would make sense to wait for it or should I continue
with this version?
Thanks!
--
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>