On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 12:05:52PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> There are several FS shrinkers, including super_block::s_shrink, that
> keep reclaimable objects in the list_lru structure. That said, to turn
> them to memcg-aware shrinkers, it is enough to make list_lru per-memcg.
>
> This patch does the trick. It adds an array of LRU lists to the list_lru
> structure, one for each kmem-active memcg, and dispatches every item
> addition or removal operation to the list corresponding to the memcg the
> item is accounted to.
>
> Since we already pass a shrink_control object to count and walk list_lru
> functions to specify the NUMA node to scan, and the target memcg is held
> in this structure, there is no need in changing the list_lru interface.
>
> The idea lying behind the patch as well as the initial implementation
> belong to Glauber Costa.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavy...@parallels.com>
> Cc: Glauber Costa <glom...@openvz.org>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchin...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com>
> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> include/linux/list_lru.h | 44 +++++++-
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 13 +++
> mm/list_lru.c | 242
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> mm/memcontrol.c | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 4 files changed, 416 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/list_lru.h b/include/linux/list_lru.h
> index 34e57af..e8add3d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/list_lru.h
> +++ b/include/linux/list_lru.h
> @@ -28,11 +28,47 @@ struct list_lru_node {
> long nr_items;
> } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>
> +struct list_lru_one {
> + struct list_lru_node *node;
> + nodemask_t active_nodes;
> +};
> +
> struct list_lru {
> - struct list_lru_node *node;
> - nodemask_t active_nodes;
> + struct list_lru_one global;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> + /*
> + * In order to provide ability of scanning objects from different
> + * memory cgroups independently, we keep a separate LRU list for each
> + * kmem-active memcg in this array. The array is RCU-protected and
> + * indexed by memcg_cache_id().
> + */
> + struct list_lru_one **memcg;
OK, as far as I can tell, this is introducing a per-node, per-memcg
LRU lists. Is that correct?
If so, then that is not what Glauber and I originally intended for
memcg LRUs. per-node LRUs are expensive in terms of memory and cross
multiplying them by the number of memcgs in a system was not a good
use of memory.
According to Glauber, most memcgs are small and typically confined
to a single node or two by external means and therefore don't need the
scalability numa aware LRUs provide. Hence the idea was that the
memcg LRUs would just be a single LRU list, just like a non-numa
aware list_lru instantiation. IOWs, this is the structure that we
had decided on as the best compromise between memory usage,
complexity and memcg awareness:
global list --- node 0 lru
node 1 lru
.....
node nr_nodes lru
memcg lists memcg 0 lru
memcg 1 lru
.....
memcg nr_memcgs lru
and the LRU code internally would select either a node or memcg LRU
to iterated based on the scan information coming in from the
shrinker. i.e.:
struct list_lru {
struct list_lru_node *node;
nodemask_t active_nodes;
#ifdef MEMCG
struct list_lru_node **memcg;
....
> bool list_lru_add(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item)
> {
> - int nid = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(item));
> - struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
> + struct page *page = virt_to_page(item);
> + int nid = page_to_nid(page);
> + struct list_lru_one *olru = lru_of_page(lru, page);
> + struct list_lru_node *nlru = &olru->node[nid];
Yeah, that's per-memcg, per-node dereferencing. And, FWIW, olru/nlru
are bad names - that's the convention typically used for "old <foo>"
and "new <foo>" pointers....
As it is, it shouldn't be necessary - lru_of_page() should just
return a struct list_lru_node....
> +int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + err = list_lru_init_one(&lru->global);
> + if (err)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + err = memcg_list_lru_init(lru);
> + if (err)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + return 0;
> +fail:
> + list_lru_destroy_one(&lru->global);
> + lru->global.node = NULL; /* see list_lru_destroy() */
> + return err;
> +}
I suspect we have users of list_lru that don't want memcg bits added
to them. Hence I think we want to leave list_lru_init() alone and
add a list_lru_init_memcg() variant that makes the LRU memcg aware.
i.e. if the shrinker is not going to be memcg aware, then we don't
want the LRU to be memcg aware, either....
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_init);
>
> void list_lru_destroy(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> - kfree(lru->node);
> + /*
> + * It is common throughout the kernel source tree to call the
> + * destructor on a zeroed out object that has not been initialized or
> + * whose initialization failed, because it greatly simplifies fail
> + * paths. Once the list_lru structure was implemented, its destructor
> + * consisted of the only call to kfree() and thus conformed to the
> + * rule, but as it growed, it became more complex so that calling
> + * destructor on an uninitialized object would be a bug. To preserve
> + * backward compatibility, we explicitly exit the destructor if the
> + * object seems to be uninitialized.
> + */
We don't need an essay here. somethign a simple as:
/*
* We might be called after partial initialisation (e.g. due to
* ENOMEM error) so handle that appropriately.
*/
> + if (!lru->global.node)
> + return;
> +
> + list_lru_destroy_one(&lru->global);
> + memcg_list_lru_destroy(lru);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_destroy);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +int list_lru_memcg_alloc(struct list_lru *lru, int memcg_id)
> +{
> + int err;
> + struct list_lru_one *olru;
> +
> + olru = kmalloc(sizeof(*olru), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!olru)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + err = list_lru_init_one(olru);
> + if (err) {
> + kfree(olru);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + VM_BUG_ON(lru->memcg[memcg_id]);
> + lru->memcg[memcg_id] = olru;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void list_lru_memcg_free(struct list_lru *lru, int memcg_id)
> +{
> + struct list_lru_one *olru;
> +
> + olru = lru->memcg[memcg_id];
> + if (olru) {
> + list_lru_destroy_one(olru);
> + kfree(olru);
> + lru->memcg[memcg_id] = NULL;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +int list_lru_grow_memcg(struct list_lru *lru, size_t new_array_size)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct list_lru_one **memcg_lrus;
> +
> + memcg_lrus = kcalloc(new_array_size, sizeof(*memcg_lrus), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!memcg_lrus)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + if (lru->memcg) {
> + for_each_memcg_cache_index(i) {
> + if (lru->memcg[i])
> + memcg_lrus[i] = lru->memcg[i];
> + }
> + }
Um, krealloc()?
> +/*
> + * This function allocates LRUs for a memcg in all list_lru structures. It is
> + * called under memcg_create_mutex when a new kmem-active memcg is added.
> + */
> +static int memcg_init_all_lrus(int new_memcg_id)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> + int num_memcgs = new_memcg_id + 1;
> + int grow = (num_memcgs > memcg_limited_groups_array_size);
> + size_t new_array_size = memcg_caches_array_size(num_memcgs);
> + struct list_lru *lru;
> +
> + if (grow) {
> + list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, list) {
> + err = list_lru_grow_memcg(lru, new_array_size);
> + if (err)
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, list) {
> + err = list_lru_memcg_alloc(lru, new_memcg_id);
> + if (err) {
> + __memcg_destroy_all_lrus(new_memcg_id);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +out:
> + if (grow) {
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + list_for_each_entry(lru, &all_memcg_lrus, list) {
> + kfree(lru->memcg_old);
> + lru->memcg_old = NULL;
> + }
> + }
> + return err;
> +}
Urk. That won't scale very well.
> +
> +int memcg_list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> + int i;
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> +
> + lru->memcg = NULL;
> + lru->memcg_old = NULL;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&memcg_create_mutex);
> + if (!memcg_kmem_enabled())
> + goto out_list_add;
> +
> + lru->memcg = kcalloc(memcg_limited_groups_array_size,
> + sizeof(*lru->memcg), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!lru->memcg) {
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + for_each_mem_cgroup(memcg) {
> + int memcg_id;
> +
> + memcg_id = memcg_cache_id(memcg);
> + if (memcg_id < 0)
> + continue;
> +
> + err = list_lru_memcg_alloc(lru, memcg_id);
> + if (err) {
> + mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg);
> + goto out_free_lru_memcg;
> + }
> + }
> +out_list_add:
> + list_add(&lru->list, &all_memcg_lrus);
> +out:
> + mutex_unlock(&memcg_create_mutex);
> + return err;
> +
> +out_free_lru_memcg:
> + for (i = 0; i < memcg_limited_groups_array_size; i++)
> + list_lru_memcg_free(lru, i);
> + kfree(lru->memcg);
> + goto out;
> +}
That will probably scale even worse. Think about what happens when we
try to mount a bunch of filesystems in parallel - they will now
serialise completely on this memcg_create_mutex instantiating memcg
lists inside list_lru_init().
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
