Thread (8 messages) flat view 8 messages, 5 authors, 2013-06-09

Re: [PATCH v11 20/25] drivers: convert shrinkers to new count/scan API

From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <hidden>
Date: 2013-06-07 14:10:27
Also in: linux-fsdevel, linux-mm

On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 12:34:53AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
From: Dave Chinner <redacted>

Convert the driver shrinkers to the new API. Most changes are
compile tested only because I either don't have the hardware or it's
staging stuff.

FWIW, the md and android code is pretty good, but the rest of it
makes me want to claw my eyes out.  The amount of broken code I just
encountered is mind boggling.  I've added comments explaining what
is broken, but I fear that some of the code would be best dealt with
by being dragged behind the bike shed, burying in mud up to it's
neck and then run over repeatedly with a blunt lawn mower.
The rest being i915, ttm, bcache- etc ?
Special mention goes to the zcache/zcache2 drivers. They can't
co-exist in the build at the same time, they are under different
menu options in menuconfig, they only show up when you've got the
right set of mm subsystem options configured and so even compile
testing is an exercise in pulling teeth.  And that doesn't even take
into account the horrible, broken code...
Now that you have rebased it, did you still see issues here.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc.c
index bd2a3b4..1746f30 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc.c
@@ -377,28 +377,26 @@ out:
 	return nr_free;
 }
 
-/* Get good estimation how many pages are free in pools */
-static int ttm_pool_get_num_unused_pages(void)
-{
-	unsigned i;
-	int total = 0;
-	for (i = 0; i < NUM_POOLS; ++i)
-		total += _manager->pools[i].npages;
-
-	return total;
-}
-
I am unclear as of why you move this.
 /**
  * Callback for mm to request pool to reduce number of page held.
+ *
+ * XXX: (dchinner) Deadlock warning!
+ *
+ * ttm_page_pool_free() does memory allocation using GFP_KERNEL.  that means
That
+ * this can deadlock when called a sc->gfp_mask that is not equal to
+ * GFP_KERNEL.
+ *
+ * This code is crying out for a shrinker per pool....
It iterates over different pools.


The ttm_page_pool_free() could use GFP_ATOMIC to guard against the dead-lock
I think?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
  */
-static int ttm_pool_mm_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink,
-			      struct shrink_control *sc)
+static long
+ttm_pool_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
 {
 	static atomic_t start_pool = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
 	unsigned i;
 	unsigned pool_offset = atomic_add_return(1, &start_pool);
 	struct ttm_page_pool *pool;
 	int shrink_pages = sc->nr_to_scan;
+	long freed = 0;
 
 	pool_offset = pool_offset % NUM_POOLS;
 	/* select start pool in round robin fashion */
@@ -408,14 +406,28 @@ static int ttm_pool_mm_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink,
 			break;
 		pool = &_manager->pools[(i + pool_offset)%NUM_POOLS];
 		shrink_pages = ttm_page_pool_free(pool, nr_free);
+		freed += nr_free - shrink_pages;
 	}
-	/* return estimated number of unused pages in pool */
-	return ttm_pool_get_num_unused_pages();
+	return freed;
+}
+
+
+static long
+ttm_pool_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
+{
+	unsigned i;
+	long count = 0;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < NUM_POOLS; ++i)
+		count += _manager->pools[i].npages;
+
+	return count;
 }
 
 static void ttm_pool_mm_shrink_init(struct ttm_pool_manager *manager)
 {
-	manager->mm_shrink.shrink = &ttm_pool_mm_shrink;
+	manager->mm_shrink.count_objects = &ttm_pool_shrink_count;
+	manager->mm_shrink.scan_objects = &ttm_pool_shrink_scan;
 	manager->mm_shrink.seeks = 1;
 	register_shrinker(&manager->mm_shrink);
 }
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c
index b8b3943..dc009f1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c
@@ -918,19 +918,6 @@ int ttm_dma_populate(struct ttm_dma_tt *ttm_dma, struct device *dev)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ttm_dma_populate);
 
-/* Get good estimation how many pages are free in pools */
-static int ttm_dma_pool_get_num_unused_pages(void)
-{
-	struct device_pools *p;
-	unsigned total = 0;
-
-	mutex_lock(&_manager->lock);
-	list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools)
-		total += p->pool->npages_free;
-	mutex_unlock(&_manager->lock);
-	return total;
-}
-
 /* Put all pages in pages list to correct pool to wait for reuse */
 void ttm_dma_unpopulate(struct ttm_dma_tt *ttm_dma, struct device *dev)
 {
@@ -1002,18 +989,29 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ttm_dma_unpopulate);
 
 /**
  * Callback for mm to request pool to reduce number of page held.
+ *
+ * XXX: (dchinner) Deadlock warning!
+ *
+ * ttm_dma_page_pool_free() does GFP_KERNEL memory allocation, and so attention
+ * needs to be paid to sc->gfp_mask to determine if this can be done or not.
+ * GFP_KERNEL memory allocation in a GFP_ATOMIC reclaim context woul dbe really
+ * bad.
would be.
+ *
+ * I'm getting sadder as I hear more pathetical whimpers about needing per-pool
+ * shrinkers
Were are these whimpers coming from?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
  */
-static int ttm_dma_pool_mm_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink,
-				  struct shrink_control *sc)
+static long
+ttm_dma_pool_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
 {
 	static atomic_t start_pool = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
 	unsigned idx = 0;
 	unsigned pool_offset = atomic_add_return(1, &start_pool);
 	unsigned shrink_pages = sc->nr_to_scan;
 	struct device_pools *p;
+	long freed = 0;
 
 	if (list_empty(&_manager->pools))
-		return 0;
+		return SHRINK_STOP;
 
 	mutex_lock(&_manager->lock);
 	pool_offset = pool_offset % _manager->npools;
@@ -1029,18 +1027,33 @@ static int ttm_dma_pool_mm_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink,
 			continue;
 		nr_free = shrink_pages;
 		shrink_pages = ttm_dma_page_pool_free(p->pool, nr_free);
+		freed += nr_free - shrink_pages;
+
 		pr_debug("%s: (%s:%d) Asked to shrink %d, have %d more to go\n",
 			 p->pool->dev_name, p->pool->name, current->pid,
 			 nr_free, shrink_pages);
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&_manager->lock);
-	/* return estimated number of unused pages in pool */
-	return ttm_dma_pool_get_num_unused_pages();
+	return freed;
+}
That code looks good.
+
+static long
+ttm_dma_pool_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
+{
+	struct device_pools *p;
+	long count = 0;
+
+	mutex_lock(&_manager->lock);
+	list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools)
+		count += p->pool->npages_free;
+	mutex_unlock(&_manager->lock);
+	return count;
 }
But this needn't to be moved? Or is it b/c you would like the code to
be in "one section" ?

If so, please use the same style for functions as the rest of the file
has.
 
 static void ttm_dma_pool_mm_shrink_init(struct ttm_pool_manager *manager)
 {
-	manager->mm_shrink.shrink = &ttm_dma_pool_mm_shrink;
+	manager->mm_shrink.count_objects = &ttm_dma_pool_shrink_count;
+	manager->mm_shrink.scan_objects = &ttm_dma_pool_shrink_scan;
 	manager->mm_shrink.seeks = 1;
 	register_shrinker(&manager->mm_shrink);
 }
.. snip..
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/staging/zcache/zcache-main.c b/drivers/staging/zcache/zcache-main.c
index dcceed2..4ade8e3 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/zcache/zcache-main.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/zcache/zcache-main.c
@@ -1140,23 +1140,19 @@ static bool zcache_freeze;
  * pageframes in use.  FIXME POLICY: Probably the writeback should only occur
  * if the eviction doesn't free enough pages.
  */
-static int shrink_zcache_memory(struct shrinker *shrink,
-				struct shrink_control *sc)
+static long scan_zcache_memory(struct shrinker *shrink,
+			       struct shrink_control *sc)
 {
 	static bool in_progress;
-	int ret = -1;
-	int nr = sc->nr_to_scan;
 	int nr_evict = 0;
 	int nr_writeback = 0;
 	struct page *page;
 	int  file_pageframes_inuse, anon_pageframes_inuse;
-
-	if (nr <= 0)
-		goto skip_evict;
+	long freed = 0;
 
 	/* don't allow more than one eviction thread at a time */
 	if (in_progress)
-		goto skip_evict;
+		return 0;
 
 	in_progress = true;
 
@@ -1176,6 +1172,7 @@ static int shrink_zcache_memory(struct shrinker *shrink,
 		if (page == NULL)
 			break;
 		zcache_free_page(page);
+		freed++;
 	}
 
 	zcache_last_active_anon_pageframes =
@@ -1192,13 +1189,22 @@ static int shrink_zcache_memory(struct shrinker *shrink,
 #ifdef CONFIG_ZCACHE_WRITEBACK
 		int writeback_ret;
 		writeback_ret = zcache_frontswap_writeback();
-		if (writeback_ret == -ENOMEM)
+		if (writeback_ret != -ENOMEM)
+			freed++;
+		else
 #endif
 			break;
 	}
 	in_progress = false;
 
-skip_evict:
+	return freed;
+}
+
+static long count_zcache_memory(struct shrinker *shrink,
+				struct shrink_control *sc)
+{
+	int ret = -1;
+
 	/* resample: has changed, but maybe not all the way yet */
 	zcache_last_active_file_pageframes =
 		global_page_state(NR_LRU_BASE + LRU_ACTIVE_FILE);
@@ -1212,7 +1218,8 @@ skip_evict:
 }
 
 static struct shrinker zcache_shrinker = {
-	.shrink = shrink_zcache_memory,
+	.scan_objects = scan_zcache_memory,
+	.count_objects = count_zcache_memory,
 	.seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS,
 };
 
That looks OK, but I think it needs an Ack from Greg KH as well?

--
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>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help