[Devel] Re: [PATCH] memory.min_usage

[YAMAMOTO Takashi]

> > +int mem_cgroup_canreclaim(struct page *page, struct mem_cgroup *mem1)
> > +{
> > +	struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > +	int result = 1;
> > +
> > +	if (mem1 != NULL)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	lock_page_cgroup(page);
> > +	pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page);
> > +	if (pc) {
> > +		struct mem_cgroup *mem2 = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > +		unsigned long long min_usage;
> > +
> > +		BUG_ON(mem2 == NULL);
> > +		min_usage = mem2->min_usage;
> > +		if (min_usage != 0) {
> > +			unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +			spin_lock_irqsave(&mem2->res.lock, flags);
> > +			if (mem2->res.usage <= min_usage)
> > +				result = 0;
> > +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mem2->res.lock, flags);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	unlock_page_cgroup(page);
> > +
> > +	return result;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> How about adding lock_and_get_page_cgroup(page)/put_page_cgroup() ?
> ==
> struct page_cgroup *pc lock_and_get_page_cgroup(page)
> {
> 	struct page_cgroup *pc;
> 
> 	lock_page_cgroup(page);
> 	pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page);
> 	if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&pc->ref_cnt)) 
> 		pc = NULL;
> 	unlock_page_cgroup(page);
> 	return pc;
> }
> 
> struct page_cgroup *pc put_page_cgroup(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> {
> 	mem_cgroup_uncharge(pc);
> }
> ==

i'm not sure if it's a good idea given that reference counting (atomic_foo)
has its own costs.

> BTW, how about add a status to res_counter ?
> My (based on your) current patch uses watermark_state.
> 
> Maybe we can change it to be resource_state and show following status.
> 
> RES_STATE_HIT_LIMIT,
> RES_STATE_ABOVE_HWATER,
> RES_STATE_ABOVE_LWATER,
> RES_STATE_STABLE, ?
> RES_STATE_BELOW_MIN,
> 
> Useful ?

how about making res_counter use seq_lock?

> >  static int alloc_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int node)
> >  {
> >  	struct mem_cgroup_per_node *pn;
> > --- linux-2.6.24-rc3-mm2-swappiness/mm/vmscan.c.BACKUP2	2007-12-03 13:52:22.000000000 +0900
> > +++ linux-2.6.24-rc3-mm2-swappiness/mm/vmscan.c	2007-12-03 14:11:42.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -531,6 +531,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(st
> >  					referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page))
> >  			goto activate_locked;
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT
> > +		if (!mem_cgroup_canreclaim(page, sc->mem_cgroup))
> > +			goto activate_locked;
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT */
> > +
> 
> Maybe 
> ==
> if (scan_global_lru(sc) && !
>     mem_cgroup_canreclaim(page, sc->mem-cgroup))
>     goto activate_locked:
> ==

i don't think the decision belongs to callers.
(at least it wasn't my intention.)

YAMAMOTO Takashi
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers