On Fri 20-01-12 11:19:47, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:47:12 +0100
Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri 13-01-12 17:45:10, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

From 3df71cef5757ee6547916c4952f04a263c1b8ddb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <redacted>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:07:35 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 7/7] memcg: make mem_cgroup_begin_update_stat to use global pcpu.

Now, a per-cpu flag to show the memcg is under account moving is
now implemented as per-memcg-per-cpu.

So, when accessing this, we need to access memcg 1st. But this
function is called even when status update doesn't occur. Then,
accessing struct memcg is an overhead in such case.

This patch removes per-cpu-per-memcg MEM_CGROUP_ON_MOVE and add
per-cpu vairable to do the same work. For per-memcg, atomic
counter is added. By this, mem_cgroup_begin_update_stat() will
just access percpu variable in usual case and don't need to find & access
memcg. This reduces overhead.

I agree that move_account is not a hotpath and that we don't have
to optimize for it but I guess we can do better. If we use a cookie
parameter for
mem_cgroup_{begin,end}_update_stat(struct page *page, unsigned long *cookie)
then we can stab page_cgroup inside and use the last bit for
locked.  Then we do not have to call lookup_page_cgroup again in
mem_cgroup_update_page_stat and just replace page by the cookie.
What do you think?

Because these routine is called as

	mem_cgroup_begin_update_stat()
	if (condition)
		set_page_flag
		mem_cgroup_update_stat()
	mem_cgroup_end_update_stat()

In earlier version(not posted), I did so. Now, I don't because of 2 reasons.

1. I wonder it's better not to have extra arguments in begin_xxx it
   will be overhead itself.

I am not sure this could be noticable.

2. my work's final purpose is integrate page_cgroup to struct page.
   If I can do, lookup_page_cgroup() cost will be almost 0 and we'll revert
   the cookie, finally.

OK

So, can't we keep this update routine simple for a while ?

Sure. I was just concerned that global move account state might be an
issue because we would have an side effect interaction between different
cgroups.

If we saw it's finally impossible to integrate page_cgroup to page,
I'd like to consider 'cookie' again.

BTW, If we use spinlock and need to do irq_disable() in begin_update_stat()
we'll need to pass *flags...

Right, you said that dirty page accounting requires to be called from
IRQ context as well.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic