[Devel] [PATCH] memcg: remove KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVATED

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 09-12-13 22:44:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 07:22 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 04-12-13 15:56:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >> On 12/04/2013 02:08 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>>>> Could you do something clever with just one flag? Probably yes. But I
> >>>>> doubt it would
> >>>>> be that much cleaner, this is just the way that patching sites work.
> >>>> Thank you for spending your time to listen to me.
> >>>>
> >>> Don't worry! I thank you for carrying this forward.
> >>>
> >>>> Let me try to explain what is bothering me.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have two state bits for each memcg, 'active' and 'activated'. There
> >>>> are two scenarios where the bits can be modified:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) The kmem limit is set on a memcg for the first time -
> >>>> memcg_update_kmem_limit(). Here we call memcg_update_cache_sizes(),
> >>>> which sets the 'activated' bit on success, then update static branching,
> >>>> then set the 'active' bit. All three actions are done atomically in
> >>>> respect to other tasks setting the limit due to the set_limit_mutex.
> >>>> After both bits are set, they never get cleared for the memcg.
> >>>>
> >>> So far so good. But again, note how you yourself describe it:
> >>> the cations are done atomically  *in respect to other tasks setting the limit*
> >>>
> >>> But there are also tasks that are running its courses naturally and
> >>> just allocating
> >>> memory. For those, some call sites will be on, some will be off. We need to make
> >>> sure that *none* of them uses the patched site until *all* of them are patched.
> >>> This has nothing to do with updates, this is all about the readers.
> >>>
> >>>> 2) When a subgroup of a kmem-active cgroup is created -
> >>>> memcg_propagate_kmem(). Here we copy kmem_account_flags from the parent,
> >>>> then increase static branching refcounter, then call
> >>>> memcg_update_cache_sizes() for the new memcg, which may clear the
> >>>> 'activated' bit on failure. After successful execution, the state bits
> >>>> never get cleared for the new memcg.
> >>>>
> >>>> In scenario 2 there is no need bothering about the flags setting order,
> >>>> because we don't have any tasks in the cgroup yet - the tasks can be
> >>>> moved in only after css_online finishes when we have both of the bits
> >>>> set and the static branching enabled. Actually, we already do not bother
> >>>> about it, because we have both bits set before the cgroup is fully
> >>>> initialized (memcg_update_cache_sizes() is called).
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, after the first cgroup is set none of that matters. But it is just easier
> >>> and less error prone just to follow the same path every time. As I have said,
> >>> if you can come up with a more clever way to deal with the problem above
> >>> that doesn't involve the double flag - and you can prove it works - I
> >>> am definitely
> >>> fine with it. But this is subtle code, and in the past - Michal can
> >>> attest this - we've
> >>> changed this being sure it would work just to see it explode in our faces.
> >>>
> >>> So although I am willing to review every patch for correctness on that
> >>> front (I never
> >>> said I liked the 2-flags scheme...), unless you have a bug or real
> >>> problem on it,
> >>> I would advise against changing it if its just to make it more readable.
> >>>
> >>> But again, don't take me too seriously on this. If you and Michal think you can
> >>> come up with something better, I'm all for it.
> >> All right, I finally get you :-)
> >>
> >> Although I still don't think we need the second flag, I now understand
> >> that it's better not to change the code that works fine especially the
> >> change does not make it neither more readable nor more effective. Since
> >> I can be mistaken about the flags usage (it's by far not unlikely), it's
> >> better to leave it as is rather than being at risk of catching spurious
> >> hangs that might be caused by this modification.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the detailed explanation!
> > It would be really great if we could push some of that into the
> > comments, please?
> >
> > Anyway, reading this thread again, I guess I finally got what you meant
> > Vladimir.
> > You are basically saying that the two stage enabling can be done
> > by static_key_slow_inc in the first step and memcg_kmem_set_active
> > in the second step without an additional flag.
> > Assuming that the writers cannot race (they cannot currently because
> > they are linearized by set_limit_mutex and memcg_create_mutex) and
> > readers (charging paths) are _always_ checking the static key before
> > checking active flags?
> 
> Right. There is no point in checking the static key after checking
> active flags, because the benefit of using static branching would
> disappear then. So IMHO the only thing we should bother is that the
> static key refcounter is incremented *before* the active bit is set.
> That assures all static branches have been patched if a charge path
> succeeds, because a charge path cannot succeed if the active bit is not
> set. That said we won't skip a commit or uncharge after a charge due to
> an unpatched static branch. That's why I think the 'active' bit is enough.
> 
> Currently we have two flags 'activated' and 'active', and their usage
> looks strange to me. Throughout the code we only have the following checks:
>     test_bit('active', state_mask)
>     test_bit('active', state_mask)&&test_bit('activated', state_mask)
> Since 'active' bit is always set after 'activated' and none of them gets
> cleared, the latter check is equivalent to the former.
> Since we never issue a check like this:
>     test_bit('activated', state_mask)
> we never actually check the 'activated' bit and do not need it - ???

That is my current understanding. Care to send a patch with the whole
reasoning?

> Thanks.
> 
> > I guess this should work. But it would require a deep audit that the
> > above is correct in all places. For example we do not bother to check
> > static key during offline/free paths. I guess it should be harmless as
> > is but who knows...
> >
> > I would rather see more detailed description of the current state first.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs