Re: [RFC] [PATCH 3/7 v2] memcg: remove PCG_MOVE_LOCK flag from pc->flags
From: Michal Hocko <hidden>
Date: 2012-01-24 08:43:38
Also in:
cgroups
On Mon 23-01-12 14:05:33, Ying Han wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:53 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:47:03 +0100 Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed 18-01-12 09:12:26, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:quoted
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:46:05 +0100 Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri 13-01-12 17:40:19, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:[...]quoted
quoted
quoted
This patch removes PCG_MOVE_LOCK and add hashed rwlock array instead of it. This works well enough. Even when we need to take the lock,Hmmm, rwlocks are not popular these days very much. Anyway, can we rather make it (source) memcg (bit)spinlock instead. We would reduce false sharing this way and would penalize only pages from the moving group.per-memcg spinlock ?Yesquoted
The reason I used rwlock() is to avoid disabling IRQ. This routine will be called by IRQ context (for dirty ratio support). So, IRQ disable will be required if we use spinlock.OK, I have missed the comment about disabling IRQs. It's true that we do not have to be afraid about deadlocks if the lock is held only for reading from the irq context but does the spinlock makes a performance bottleneck? We are talking about the slowpath. I could see the reason for the read lock when doing hashed locks because they are global but if we make the lock per memcg then we shouldn't interfere with other updates which are not blocked by the move.Hm, ok. In the next version, I'll use per-memcg spinlock (with hash if necessary)Just want to make sure I understand it, even we make the lock per-memcg, there is still a false sharing of pc within one memcg.
Yes that is true. I have missed that we might fault in several pages at once but this would happen only during task move, right? And that is not a hot path anyway. Or?
Do we need to demonstrate the effect ? Also, I don't get the point of why spinlock instead of rwlock in this case?
spinlock provides a fairness while with rwlocks might lead to starvation. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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>