Subject: [to-be-updated] memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation.patch removed from -mm tree
To: glommer@xxxxxxxxxx,dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx,mm-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:35:11 -0700
The patch titled
Subject: memcg,list_lru: duplicate LRUs upon kmemcg creation
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation.patch
This patch was dropped because an updated version will be merged
------------------------------------------------------
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: memcg,list_lru: duplicate LRUs upon kmemcg creation
When a new memcg is created, we need to open up room for its descriptors
in all of the list_lrus that are marked per-memcg. The process is quite
similar to the one we are using for the kmem caches: we initialize the new
structures in an array indexed by kmemcg_id, and grow the array if needed.
Key data like the size of the array will be shared between the kmem cache
code and the list_lru code (they basically describe the same thing)
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/list_lru.h | 48 ++++++++++-
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 12 ++
lib/list_lru.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++--
mm/memcontrol.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
mm/slab_common.c | 1
5 files changed, 297 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff -puN include/linux/list_lru.h~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation include/linux/list_lru.h
--- a/include/linux/list_lru.h~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation
+++ a/include/linux/list_lru.h
@@ -24,6 +24,23 @@ struct list_lru_node {
long nr_items;
} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
+/*
+ * This is supposed to be M x N matrix, where M is kmem-limited memcg, and N is
+ * the number of nodes. Both dimensions are likely to be very small, but are
+ * potentially very big. Therefore we will allocate or grow them dynamically.
+ *
+ * The size of M will increase as new memcgs appear and can be 0 if no memcgs
+ * are being used. This is done in mm/memcontrol.c in a way quite similar than
+ * the way we use for the slab cache management.
+ *
+ * The size o N can't be determined at compile time, but won't increase once we
+ * determine it. It is nr_node_ids, the firmware-provided maximum number of
+ * nodes in a system.
+ */
+struct list_lru_array {
+ struct list_lru_node node[1];
+};
+
struct list_lru {
/*
* Because we use a fixed-size array, this struct can be very big if
@@ -37,9 +54,38 @@ struct list_lru {
*/
struct list_lru_node node[MAX_NUMNODES];
nodemask_t active_nodes;
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+ /* All memcg-aware LRUs will be chained in the lrus list */
+ struct list_head lrus;
+ /* M x N matrix as described above */
+ struct list_lru_array **memcg_lrus;
+#endif
};
-int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru);
+struct mem_cgroup;
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+struct list_lru_array *lru_alloc_array(void);
+int memcg_update_all_lrus(unsigned long num);
+void memcg_destroy_all_lrus(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
+void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru);
+int __memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
+#else
+static inline void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+}
+#endif
+
+int __list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_enabled);
+static inline int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ return __list_lru_init(lru, false);
+}
+
+static inline int list_lru_init_memcg(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ return __list_lru_init(lru, true);
+}
+
int list_lru_add(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item);
int list_lru_del(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item);
diff -puN include/linux/memcontrol.h~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation include/linux/memcontrol.h
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation
+++ a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#include <linux/vm_event_item.h>
#include <linux/hardirq.h>
#include <linux/jump_label.h>
+#include <linux/list_lru.h>
struct mem_cgroup;
struct page_cgroup;
@@ -470,6 +471,12 @@ void memcg_update_array_size(int num_gro
struct kmem_cache *
__memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp);
+int memcg_new_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
+int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru);
+
+int memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(struct list_lru *lru, int num_groups,
+ bool new_lru);
+
void mem_cgroup_destroy_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep);
void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s);
@@ -633,6 +640,11 @@ memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *
static inline void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s)
{
}
+
+static inline int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
#endif /* _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H */
diff -puN lib/list_lru.c~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation lib/list_lru.c
--- a/lib/list_lru.c~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation
+++ a/lib/list_lru.c
@@ -2,12 +2,17 @@
* Copyright (c) 2010-2012 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.
* Author: David Chinner
*
+ * Memcg Awareness
+ * Copyright (C) 2013 Parallels Inc.
+ * Author: Glauber Costa
+ *
* Generic LRU infrastructure
*/
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/list_lru.h>
+#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
int
list_lru_add(
@@ -163,18 +168,97 @@ list_lru_dispose_all(
return total;
}
-int
-list_lru_init(
- struct list_lru *lru)
+/*
+ * This protects the list of all LRU in the system. One only needs
+ * to take when registering an LRU, or when duplicating the list of lrus.
+ * Transversing an LRU can and should be done outside the lock
+ */
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+static LIST_HEAD(all_memcg_lrus);
+
+static void list_lru_init_one(struct list_lru_node *lru)
{
+ spin_lock_init(&lru->lock);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->list);
+ lru->nr_items = 0;
+}
+
+struct list_lru_array *lru_alloc_array(void)
+{
+ struct list_lru_array *lru_array;
int i;
- nodes_clear(lru->active_nodes);
- for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++) {
- spin_lock_init(&lru->node[i].lock);
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->node[i].list);
- lru->node[i].nr_items = 0;
+ lru_array = kzalloc(nr_node_ids * sizeof(struct list_lru_node),
+ GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!lru_array)
+ return NULL;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids; i++)
+ list_lru_init_one(&lru_array->node[i]);
+
+ return lru_array;
+}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+int __memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&lru->lrus);
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_add(&lru->lrus, &all_memcg_lrus);
+ ret = memcg_new_lru(lru);
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+int memcg_update_all_lrus(unsigned long num)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct list_lru *lru;
+
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, lrus) {
+ ret = memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(lru, num, false);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+ }
+out:
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_del(&lru->lrus);
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+}
+
+void memcg_destroy_all_lrus(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ struct list_lru *lru;
+ mutex_lock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, lrus) {
+ kfree(lru->memcg_lrus[memcg_cache_id(memcg)]);
+ lru->memcg_lrus[memcg_cache_id(memcg)] = NULL;
+ /* everybody must beaware that this memcg is no longer valid */
+ wmb();
}
+ mutex_unlock(&all_memcg_lrus_mutex);
+}
+#endif
+
+int __list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_enabled)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ nodes_clear(lru->active_nodes);
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++)
+ list_lru_init_one(&lru->node[i]);
+
+ if (memcg_enabled)
+ return memcg_init_lru(lru);
return 0;
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_init);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__list_lru_init);
diff -puN mm/memcontrol.c~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation mm/memcontrol.c
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation
+++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -3189,16 +3189,30 @@ int memcg_update_cache_sizes(struct mem_
memcg_kmem_set_activated(memcg);
ret = memcg_update_all_caches(num+1);
- if (ret) {
- ida_simple_remove(&kmem_limited_groups, num);
- memcg_kmem_clear_activated(memcg);
- return ret;
- }
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ /*
+ * We should make sure that the array size is not updated until we are
+ * done; otherwise we have no easy way to know whether or not we should
+ * grow the array.
+ */
+ ret = memcg_update_all_lrus(num + 1);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
memcg->kmemcg_id = num;
+
+ memcg_update_array_size(num + 1);
+
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&memcg->memcg_slab_caches);
mutex_init(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
+
return 0;
+out:
+ ida_simple_remove(&kmem_limited_groups, num);
+ memcg_kmem_clear_activated(memcg);
+ return ret;
}
static size_t memcg_caches_array_size(int num_groups)
@@ -3280,6 +3294,129 @@ int memcg_update_cache_size(struct kmem_
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * memcg_kmem_update_lru_size - fill in kmemcg info into a list_lru
+ *
+ * @lru: the lru we are operating with
+ * @num_groups: how many kmem-limited cgroups we have
+ * @new_lru: true if this is a new_lru being created, false if this
+ * was triggered from the memcg side
+ *
+ * Returns 0 on success, and an error code otherwise.
+ *
+ * This function can be called either when a new kmem-limited memcg appears,
+ * or when a new list_lru is created. The work is roughly the same in two cases,
+ * but in the later we never have to expand the array size.
+ *
+ * This is always protected by the all_lrus_mutex from the list_lru side. But
+ * a race can still exists if a new memcg becomes kmem limited at the same time
+ * that we are registering a new memcg. Creation is protected by the
+ * memcg_mutex, so the creation of a new lru have to be protected by that as
+ * well.
+ *
+ * The lock ordering is that the memcg_mutex needs to be acquired before the
+ * lru-side mutex.
+ */
+int memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(struct list_lru *lru, int num_groups,
+ bool new_lru)
+{
+ struct list_lru_array **new_lru_array;
+ struct list_lru_array *lru_array;
+
+ lru_array = lru_alloc_array();
+ if (!lru_array)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ /*
+ * When a new LRU is created, we still need to update all data for that
+ * LRU. The procedure for late LRUs and new memcgs are quite similar, we
+ * only need to make sure we get into the loop even if num_groups <
+ * memcg_limited_groups_array_size.
+ */
+ if ((num_groups > memcg_limited_groups_array_size) || new_lru) {
+ int i;
+ struct list_lru_array **old_array;
+ size_t size = memcg_caches_array_size(num_groups);
+ int num_memcgs = memcg_limited_groups_array_size;
+
+ new_lru_array = kzalloc(size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!new_lru_array) {
+ kfree(lru_array);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; lru->memcg_lrus && (i < num_memcgs); i++) {
+ if (lru->memcg_lrus && lru->memcg_lrus[i])
+ continue;
+ new_lru_array[i] = lru->memcg_lrus[i];
+ }
+
+ old_array = lru->memcg_lrus;
+ lru->memcg_lrus = new_lru_array;
+ /*
+ * We don't need a barrier here because we are just copying
+ * information over. Anybody operating in memcg_lrus will
+ * either follow the new array or the old one and they contain
+ * exactly the same information. The new space in the end is
+ * always empty anyway.
+ */
+ if (lru->memcg_lrus)
+ kfree(old_array);
+ }
+
+ if (lru->memcg_lrus) {
+ lru->memcg_lrus[num_groups - 1] = lru_array;
+ /*
+ * Here we do need the barrier, because of the state transition
+ * implied by the assignment of the array. All users should be
+ * able to see it
+ */
+ wmb();
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/*
+ * This is called with the LRU-mutex being held.
+ */
+int memcg_new_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *iter;
+
+ if (!memcg_kmem_enabled())
+ return 0;
+
+ for_each_mem_cgroup(iter) {
+ int ret;
+ int memcg_id = memcg_cache_id(iter);
+ if (memcg_id < 0)
+ continue;
+
+ ret = memcg_kmem_update_lru_size(lru, memcg_id + 1, true);
+ if (ret) {
+ mem_cgroup_iter_break(root_mem_cgroup, iter);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/*
+ * We need to call back and forth from memcg to LRU because of the lock
+ * ordering. This complicates the flow a little bit, but since the memcg mutex
+ * is held through the whole duration of memcg creation, we need to hold it
+ * before we hold the LRU-side mutex in the case of a new list creation as
+ * well.
+ */
+int memcg_init_lru(struct list_lru *lru)
+{
+ int ret;
+ mutex_lock(&memcg_create_mutex);
+ ret = __memcg_init_lru(lru);
+ mutex_unlock(&memcg_create_mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
int memcg_register_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct kmem_cache *s,
struct kmem_cache *root_cache)
{
@@ -6089,8 +6226,10 @@ static void kmem_cgroup_destroy(struct m
* possible that the charges went down to 0 between mark_dead and the
* res_counter read, so in that case, we don't need the put
*/
- if (memcg_kmem_test_and_clear_dead(memcg))
+ if (memcg_kmem_test_and_clear_dead(memcg)) {
+ memcg_destroy_all_lrus(memcg);
mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
+ }
}
#else
static int memcg_init_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
diff -puN mm/slab_common.c~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation mm/slab_common.c
--- a/mm/slab_common.c~memcglist_lru-duplicate-lrus-upon-kmemcg-creation
+++ a/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -102,7 +102,6 @@ int memcg_update_all_caches(int num_memc
goto out;
}
- memcg_update_array_size(num_memcgs);
out:
mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
return ret;
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from glommer@xxxxxxxxxx are
lru-add-an-element-to-a-memcg-list.patch
list_lru-per-memcg-walks.patch
memcg-per-memcg-kmem-shrinking.patch
memcg-scan-cache-objects-hierarchically.patch
vmscan-take-at-least-one-pass-with-shrinkers.patch
super-targeted-memcg-reclaim.patch
memcg-move-initialization-to-memcg-creation.patch
vmpressure-in-kernel-notifications.patch
memcg-reap-dead-memcgs-upon-global-memory-pressure.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
