[Devel] Re: [PATCH] memory cgroup enhancements [1/5] force_empty for memory cgroup
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com
Tue Oct 16 22:16:09 PDT 2007
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes at google.com> wrote:
> > This is useful to invoke rmdir() against memory cgroup successfully.
> >
>
> If there's no tasks in the cgroup, then how can there be any charges
> against its memory controller? Is the memory not being uncharged when a
> task exits or is moved to another cgroup?
Page Caches are charged as page cache. (even if not mmmaped)
So, empty cgroup can maintain some amount of charges as page cache.
>
> If the only use of this is for rmdir, why not just make it part of the
> rmdir operation on the memory cgroup if there are no tasks by default?
>
This patch is just a step for that. I myself think your way is better.
If we can make a concensus and good code, we can do this in automatic way
by rmdir().
BTW, personally, I uses this *force_empty* for test memory cgroup.
(like drop_caches)
> > Tested and worked well on x86_64/fake-NUMA system.
> >
> > Changelog v3 -> v4:
> > - adjusted to 2.6.23-mm1
> > - fixed typo
> > - changes buf[2]="0" to static const
> > Changelog v2 -> v3:
> > - changed the name from force_reclaim to force_empty.
> > Changelog v1 -> v2:
> > - added a new interface force_reclaim.
> > - changes spin_lock to spin_lock_irqsave().
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com>
> >
> >
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: devel-2.6.23-mm1/mm/memcontrol.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- devel-2.6.23-mm1.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ devel-2.6.23-mm1/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -480,6 +480,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge(struct page_cgr
> > page = pc->page;
> > /*
> > * get page->cgroup and clear it under lock.
> > + * force_empty can drop page->cgroup without checking refcnt.
> > */
> > if (clear_page_cgroup(page, pc) == pc) {
> > mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > @@ -489,13 +490,6 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge(struct page_cgr
> > list_del_init(&pc->lru);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mem->lru_lock, flags);
> > kfree(pc);
> > - } else {
> > - /*
> > - * Note:This will be removed when force-empty patch is
> > - * applied. just show warning here.
> > - */
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "Race in mem_cgroup_uncharge() ?");
> > - dump_stack();
>
> Unrelated change?
>
No. force_reclaim causes this race. but not BUG. so printk is removed.
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -543,6 +537,70 @@ retry:
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * This routine traverse page_cgroup in given list and drop them all.
> > + * This routine ignores page_cgroup->ref_cnt.
> > + * *And* this routine doesn't relcaim page itself, just removes page_cgroup.
>
> Reclaim?
>
yes..
> > + */
> > +static void
> > +mem_cgroup_force_empty_list(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct list_head *list)
> > +{
> > + struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > + struct page *page;
> > + int count = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&mem->lru_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + while (!list_empty(list)) {
> > + pc = list_entry(list->prev, struct page_cgroup, lru);
> > + page = pc->page;
> > + /* Avoid race with charge */
> > + atomic_set(&pc->ref_cnt, 0);
>
> Don't you need {lock,unlock}_page_cgroup(page) here to avoid a true race
> with mem_cgroup_charge() right after you set pc->ref_cnt to 0 here?
>
My patch (already posted) add check like this in mem_cgroup_charge
--
retry:
lock_page_cgroup(page);
pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page);
/*
* The page_cgroup exists and the page has already been accounted
*/
if (pc) {
if (unlikely(!atomic_inc_not_zero(&pc->ref_cnt))) {
/* this page is under being uncharged ? */
unlock_page_cgroup(page);
cpu_relax();
goto retry;
} else {
unlock_page_cgroup(page);
goto done;
}
}
--
and clear_page_cgroup() takes a lock.
Then,
- If atoimc_set(&pc->ref_cnt, 0) goes before mem_cgroup_charge()'s
atomic_inc_not_zero(&pc->ref_cnt), there is no race.
- If atomic_inc_not_zero(&pc->ref_cnt) goes before atomic_set(),
just ignore increment and drop this charge.
> > + if (clear_page_cgroup(page, pc) == pc) {
> > + css_put(&mem->css);
> > + res_counter_uncharge(&mem->res, PAGE_SIZE);
> > + list_del_init(&pc->lru);
> > + kfree(pc);
> > + } else
> > + count = 1; /* being uncharged ? ...do relax */
> > +
> > + if (--count == 0) {
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mem->lru_lock, flags);
> > + cond_resched();
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&mem->lru_lock, flags);
>
> Instead of this hack, it's probably easier to just goto a label placed
> before spin_lock_irqsave() at the top of the function.
>
Hmm, ok. I'll consider this again.
> > + count = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mem->lru_lock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * make mem_cgroup's charge to be 0 if there is no binded task.
> > + * This enables deleting this mem_cgroup.
> > + */
> > +
> > +int mem_cgroup_force_empty(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > +{
> > + int ret = -EBUSY;
> > + css_get(&mem->css);
> > + while (!list_empty(&mem->active_list) ||
> > + !list_empty(&mem->inactive_list)) {
> > + if (atomic_read(&mem->css.cgroup->count) > 0)
> > + goto out;
> > + /* drop all page_cgroup in active_list */
> > + mem_cgroup_force_empty_list(mem, &mem->active_list);
> > + /* drop all page_cgroup in inactive_list */
> > + mem_cgroup_force_empty_list(mem, &mem->inactive_list);
> > + }
>
> This implementation as a while loop looks very suspect since
> mem_cgroup_force_empty_list() uses while (!list_empty(list)) as well.
> Perhaps it's just easier here as
>
> if (list_empty(&mem->active_list) && list_empty(&mem->inactive_list))
> return 0;
>
will fix.
> > + ret = 0;
> > +out:
> > + css_put(&mem->css);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > +
> > int mem_cgroup_write_strategy(char *buf, unsigned long long *tmp)
> > {
> > *tmp = memparse(buf, &buf);
> > @@ -628,6 +686,31 @@ static ssize_t mem_control_type_read(str
> > ppos, buf, s - buf);
> > }
> >
> > +
> > +static ssize_t mem_force_empty_write(struct cgroup *cont,
> > + struct cftype *cft, struct file *file,
> > + const char __user *userbuf,
> > + size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *mem = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont);
> > + int ret;
> > + ret = mem_cgroup_force_empty(mem);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + ret = nbytes;
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static ssize_t mem_force_empty_read(struct cgroup *cont,
> > + struct cftype *cft,
> > + struct file *file, char __user *userbuf,
> > + size_t nbytes, loff_t *ppos)
> > +{
> > + static const char buf[2] = "0";
> > + return simple_read_from_buffer((void __user *)userbuf, nbytes,
> > + ppos, buf, strlen(buf));
>
> Reading memory.force_empty is pretty useless, so why allow it to be read
> at all?
Ah, yes. How can I make this as read-only ? just remove .read ?
Thanks,
-Kame
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list