[Devel] [PATCH] memcg: remove KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVATED

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 02-12-13 22:26:48, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko at suse.cz> wrote:
> > [CCing Glauber - please do so in other posts for kmem related changes]
> >
> > On Mon 02-12-13 17:08:13, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >> The KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVATED was introduced by commit a8964b9b ("memcg:
> >> use static branches when code not in use") in order to guarantee that
> >> static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key) will be called only once
> >> for each memory cgroup when its kmem limit is set. The point is that at
> >> that time the memcg_update_kmem_limit() function's workflow looked like
> >> this:
> >>
> >>       bool must_inc_static_branch = false;
> >>
> >>       cgroup_lock();
> >>       mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
> >>       if (!memcg->kmem_account_flags && val != RESOURCE_MAX) {
> >>               /* The kmem limit is set for the first time */
> >>               ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
> >>
> >>               memcg_kmem_set_activated(memcg);
> >>               must_inc_static_branch = true;
> >>       } else
> >>               ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
> >>       mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> >>       cgroup_unlock();
> >>
> >>       if (must_inc_static_branch) {
> >>               /* We can't do this under cgroup_lock */
> >>               static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key);
> >>               memcg_kmem_set_active(memcg);
> >>       }
> >>
> >> Today, we don't use cgroup_lock in memcg_update_kmem_limit(), and
> >> static_key_slow_inc() is called under the set_limit_mutex, but the
> >> leftover from the above-mentioned commit is still here. Let's remove it.
> >
> > OK, so I have looked there again and 692e89abd154b (memcg: increment
> > static branch right after limit set) which went in after cgroup_mutex
> > has been removed. It came along with the following comment.
> >                 /*
> >                  * setting the active bit after the inc will guarantee no one
> >                  * starts accounting before all call sites are patched
> >                  */
> >
> > This suggests that the flag is needed after all because we have
> > to be sure that _all_ the places have to be patched. AFAIU
> > memcg_kmem_newpage_charge might see the static key already patched so
> > it would do a charge but memcg_kmem_commit_charge would still see it
> > unpatched and so the charge won't be committed.
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
> 
> You are correct. This flag is there due to the way we are using static branches.
> The patching of one call site is atomic, but the patching of all of
> them are not.
> Therefore we need to use a two-flag scheme to guarantee that in the first time
> we turn the static branches on, there will be a clear point after
> which we're going
> to start accounting.

So http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/27/314 is correct then, right?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs