Re: [PATCH 12/30] mm: memory reserve management
From: Pekka Enberg <hidden>
Date: 2008-07-28 10:30:14
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Hi Peter, On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 12:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 13:06 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:quoted
Hi Peter, On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:quoted
+/* + * alloc wrappers + */ +Hmm, I'm not sure I like the use of __kmalloc_track_caller() (even though you do add the wrappers for SLUB). The functions really are SLAB internals so I'd prefer to see kmalloc_reserve() moved to the allocators.See below..quoted
quoted
+void *___kmalloc_reserve(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node, void *ip, + struct mem_reserve *res, int *emerg) +{This function could use some comments...Yes, my latest does have those.. let me paste the relevant bit: +void *___kmalloc_reserve(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node, void *ip, + struct mem_reserve *res, int *emerg) +{ + void *obj; + gfp_t gfp; + + /* + * Try a regular allocation, when that fails and we're not entitled + * to the reserves, fail. + */ + gfp = flags | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN; + obj = __kmalloc_node_track_caller(size, gfp, node, ip); + + if (obj || !(gfp_to_alloc_flags(flags) & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS)) + goto out; + + /* + * If we were given a reserve to charge against, try that. + */ + if (res && !mem_reserve_kmalloc_charge(res, size)) { + /* + * If we failed to charge and we're not allowed to wait for + * it to succeed, bail. + */ + if (!(flags & __GFP_WAIT)) + goto out; + + /* + * Wait for a successfull charge against the reserve. All + * uncharge operations against this reserve will wake us up. + */ + wait_event(res->waitqueue, + mem_reserve_kmalloc_charge(res, size)); + + /* + * After waiting for it, again try a regular allocation. + * Pressure could have lifted during our sleep. If this + * succeeds, uncharge the reserve. + */ + obj = __kmalloc_node_track_caller(size, gfp, node, ip); + if (obj) { + mem_reserve_kmalloc_charge(res, -size); + goto out; + } + } + + /* + * Regular allocation failed, and we've successfully charged our + * requested usage against the reserve. Do the emergency allocation. + */ + obj = __kmalloc_node_track_caller(size, flags, node, ip); + WARN_ON(!obj); + if (emerg) + *emerg |= 1; + +out: + return obj; +}
Heh, indeed, looks much better :-).
quoted
quoted
+ void *obj; + gfp_t gfp; + + gfp = flags | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN; + obj = __kmalloc_node_track_caller(size, gfp, node, ip); + + if (obj || !(gfp_to_alloc_flags(flags) & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS)) + goto out; + + if (res && !mem_reserve_kmalloc_charge(res, size)) { + if (!(flags & __GFP_WAIT)) + goto out; + + wait_event(res->waitqueue, + mem_reserve_kmalloc_charge(res, size)); + + obj = __kmalloc_node_track_caller(size, gfp, node, ip); + if (obj) { + mem_reserve_kmalloc_charge(res, -size);Why do we discharge here?because a regular allocation succeeded.quoted
quoted
+ goto out; + }If the allocation fails, we try again (but nothing has changed, right?). Why?Note the different allocation flags for the two allocations.
Uhm, yeah. I missed that.
quoted
quoted
+ } + + obj = __kmalloc_node_track_caller(size, flags, node, ip); + WARN_ON(!obj);Why don't we discharge from the reserve here if !obj?Well, this allocation should never fail: - we reserved memory - we accounted/throttle its usage Thus this allocation should always succeed.
But if it *does* fail, it doesn't help that we mess up the reservation counts, no?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
quoted
quoted
+ if (emerg) + *emerg |= 1; + +out: + return obj; +} + +void __kfree_reserve(void *obj, struct mem_reserve *res, int emerg)I don't see 'emerg' used anywhere.Patch 19/30 has: - data = kmalloc_node_track_caller(size + sizeof(struct skb_shared_info), - gfp_mask, node); + data = kmalloc_reserve(size + sizeof(struct skb_shared_info), + gfp_mask, node, &net_skb_reserve, &emergency); if (!data) goto nodata;@@ -205,6 +211,7 @@ struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb(unsigned int * the tail pointer in struct sk_buff! */ memset(skb, 0, offsetof(struct sk_buff, tail)); + skb->emergency = emergency; skb->truesize = size + sizeof(struct sk_buff); atomic_set(&skb->users, 1); skb->head = data;quoted
quoted
+{ + size_t size = ksize(obj); + + kfree(obj);We're trying to get rid of kfree() so I'd __kfree_reserve() could to mm/sl?b.c. Matt, thoughts?My issue with moving these helpers into mm/sl?b.c is that it would require replicating all this code 3 times. Even though the functionality is (or should) be invariant to the actual slab implementation.
Right, I guess we could just rename ksize() to something else then and keep it internal to mm/.
quoted
quoted
+ /* + * ksize gives the full allocated size vs the requested size we used to + * charge; however since we round up to the nearest power of two, this + * should all work nicely. + */ + mem_reserve_kmalloc_charge(res, -size); +}