Thread (26 messages) 26 messages, 7 authors, 2011-09-06

Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove unneeded preempt_disable

From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <hidden>
Date: 2011-09-06 10:53:23
Also in: lkml

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:49:15 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:04:24PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:58:52 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:50:53PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
quoted
Both mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() were
unnecessarily disabling preemption when adjusting per-cpu counters:
    preempt_disable()
    __this_cpu_xxx()
    __this_cpu_yyy()
    preempt_enable()

This change does not disable preemption and thus CPU switch is possible
within these routines.  This does not cause a problem because the total
of all cpu counters is summed when reporting stats.  Now both
mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() and mem_cgroup_move_account() look like:
    this_cpu_xxx()
    this_cpu_yyy()

Reported-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <redacted>
I just noticed that both cases have preemption disabled anyway because
of the page_cgroup bit spinlock.

So removing the preempt_disable() is fine but we can even keep the
non-atomic __this_cpu operations.

Something like this instead?

---
From: Johannes Weiner <redacted>
Subject: mm: memcg: remove needless recursive preemption disabling

Callsites of mem_cgroup_charge_statistics() hold the page_cgroup bit
spinlock, which implies disabled preemption.

The same goes for the explicit preemption disabling to account mapped
file pages in mem_cgroup_move_account().

The explicit disabling of preemption in both cases is redundant.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <redacted>
Could you add comments as
"This operation is called under bit spin lock !" ?
I left it as is in the file-mapped case, because if you read the
__this_cpu ops and go looking for who disables preemption, you see the
lock_page_cgroup() immediately a few lines above.

But I agree that the charge_statistics() is much less obvious, so I
added a line there.

Is that okay?
seems nice.

Thanks,
-Kame
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
quoted
Nice catch.

Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <redacted>
Thanks!

---

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <redacted>
---
 mm/memcontrol.c |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -615,6 +615,7 @@ static unsigned long mem_cgroup_read_eve
 	return val;
 }
 
+/* Must be called with preemption disabled */
 static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
 					 bool file, int nr_pages)
 {
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
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