Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to children
From: Michal Hocko <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-17 09:00:39
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On Thu 09-08-12 17:01:17, Glauber Costa wrote:
The current memcg slab cache management fails to present satisfatory hierarchical behavior in the following scenario: -> /cgroups/memory/A/B/C * kmem limit set at A, * A and B have no tasks, * span a new task in in C. Because kmem_accounted is a boolean that was not set for C, no accounting would be done. This is, however, not what we expect. The basic idea, is that when a cgroup is limited, we walk the tree upwards
Isn't it rather downwards? We start at A and then mark all children so we go down the tree. Moreover the walk is not atomic wrt. parallel charges nor to a new child creation. First one seems to be acceptable as the charges go to the root. The second one requires cgroup_lock. It also seems that you are missing memcg_kmem_account_parent in mem_cgroup_create (use_hierarchy path) if memcg_kmem_is_accounted(parent). Some further "wording" comments below. Other than that the patch looks correct.
(something Kame and I already thought about doing for other purposes), and make sure that we store the information about the parent being limited in kmem_accounted (that is turned into a bitmap: two booleans would not be space efficient).
Two booleans even don't serve the purpose because you want to test this atomically, right?
The code for that is taken from sched/core.c. My reasons for not putting it into a common place is to dodge the type issues that would arise from a common implementation between memcg and the scheduler - but I think that it should ultimately happen, so if you want me to do it now, let me know.
Is this really relevant for the patch?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
We do the reverse operation when a formerly limited cgroup becomes unlimited. Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <redacted> CC: Christoph Lameter <redacted> CC: Pekka Enberg <redacted> CC: Michal Hocko <redacted> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <redacted> CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> CC: Suleiman Souhlal <redacted> --- mm/memcontrol.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index 3216292..3d30b79 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c@@ -295,7 +295,8 @@ struct mem_cgroup { * Should the accounting and control be hierarchical, per subtree? */ bool use_hierarchy; - bool kmem_accounted; + + unsigned long kmem_accounted; /* See KMEM_ACCOUNTED_*, below */ bool oom_lock; atomic_t under_oom;@@ -348,6 +349,38 @@ struct mem_cgroup { #endif }; +enum { + KMEM_ACCOUNTED_THIS, /* accounted by this cgroup itself */ + KMEM_ACCOUNTED_PARENT, /* accounted by any of its parents. */
How it can be accounted by its parent, the charge doesn't go downwards. Shouldn't it rather be /* a parent is accounted */
+}; + +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM +static bool memcg_kmem_account(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
memcg_kmem_set_account? It matches _clear_ counterpart and it makes obvious that the value is changed actually. [...]
+static bool memcg_kmem_is_accounted(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ return test_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_THIS, &memcg->kmem_accounted);
+}
+
+static void memcg_kmem_account_parent(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)same here _set_parent [...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -614,7 +647,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memcg_kmem_free_page); static void disarm_kmem_keys(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { - if (memcg->kmem_accounted) + if (test_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_THIS, &memcg->kmem_accounted))
memcg_kmem_is_accounted. I do not see any reason to open code this.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
static_key_slow_dec(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key); } #else@@ -4171,17 +4204,54 @@ static ssize_t mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft, static void memcg_update_kmem_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, u64 val) { #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM - /* - * Once enabled, can't be disabled. We could in theory disable it if we - * haven't yet created any caches, or if we can shrink them all to - * death. But it is not worth the trouble. - */ + struct mem_cgroup *iter; + mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex); - if (!memcg->kmem_accounted && val != RESOURCE_MAX) { + if ((val != RESOURCE_MAX) && memcg_kmem_account(memcg)) { + + /* + * Once enabled, can't be disabled. We could in theory disable + * it if we haven't yet created any caches, or if we can shrink + * them all to death. But it is not worth the trouble + */ static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key); - memcg->kmem_accounted = true; + + if (!memcg->use_hierarchy) + goto out; + + for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) {
for_each_mem_cgroup_tree does respect use_hierarchy so the above shortcut is not necessary. Dunno but IMHO we should get rid of explicit tests as much as possible. This doesn't look like a hot path anyway.
+ if (iter == memcg)
+ continue;
+ memcg_kmem_account_parent(iter);
+ }
+ } else if ((val == RESOURCE_MAX) && memcg_kmem_clear_account(memcg)) {Above you said "Once enabled, can't be disabled." and now you can disable it? Say you are a leaf group with non accounted parents. This will clear the flag and so no further accounting is done. Shouldn't unlimited mean that we will never reach the limit? Or am I missing something?
+
+ if (!memcg->use_hierarchy)
+ goto out;
+
+ for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) {
+ struct mem_cgroup *parent;
+
+ if (iter == memcg)
+ continue;
+ /*
+ * We should only have our parent bit cleared if none
+ * of our parents are accounted. The transversal order
+ * of our iter function forces us to always look at the
+ * parents.
+ */
+ parent = parent_mem_cgroup(iter);
+ for (; parent != memcg; parent = parent_mem_cgroup(iter))
+ if (memcg_kmem_is_accounted(parent))
+ goto noclear;
+ memcg_kmem_clear_account_parent(iter);
Brain hurts...
Yes we are iterating in the creation ordering so we cannot rely on the
first encountered accounted memcg
A(a) - B - D
- C (a) - E
+noclear: + continue; + } } +out: mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex); + #endif } -- 1.7.11.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>