On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:10:39 +0530
> Balbir Singh <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-03-19 10:23:32]:
>>
>> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0530
>> > Balbir Singh <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-03-18
>> > > 13:35:27]:
>> >
>> > > > Then, no probelm. It's ok to add mem_cgroup_udpate_stat() indpendent
>> > > > from
>> > > > mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(). The look may be messy but it's not
>> > > > your
>> > > > fault. But please write "why add new function" to patch description.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm sorry for wasting your time.
>> > >
>> > > Do we need to go down this route? We could check the stat and do the
>> > > correct thing. In case of FILE_MAPPED, always grab page_cgroup_lock
>> > > and for others potentially look at trylock. It is OK for different
>> > > stats to be protected via different locks.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I _don't_ want to see a mixture of spinlock and trylock in a function.
>> >
>>
>> A well documented well written function can help. The other thing is to
>> of-course solve this correctly by introducing different locking around
>> the statistics. Are you suggesting the later?
>>
>
> No. As I wrote.
> - don't modify codes around FILE_MAPPED in this series.
> - add a new functions for new statistics
> Then,
> - think about clean up later, after we confirm all things work as
> expected.
I have ported Andrea Righi's memcg dirty page accounting patches to latest
mmtom-2010-04-05-16-09. In doing so I have to address this locking issue. Does
the following look good? I will (of course) submit the entire patch for review,
but I wanted make sure I was aiming in the right direction.
void mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(struct page *page,
enum mem_cgroup_write_page_stat_item idx, bool charge)
{
static int seq;
struct page_cgroup *pc;
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return;
pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
if (!pc || mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup))
return;
/*
* This routine does not disable irq when updating stats. So it is
* possible that a stat update from within interrupt routine, could
* deadlock. Use trylock_page_cgroup() to avoid such deadlock. This
* makes the memcg counters fuzzy. More complicated, or lower
* performing locking solutions avoid this fuzziness, but are not
* currently needed.
*/
if (irqs_disabled()) {
if (! trylock_page_cgroup(pc))
return;
} else
lock_page_cgroup(pc);
__mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(pc, idx, charge);
unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
}
__mem_cgroup_update_page_stat() has a switch statement that updates all of the
MEMCG_NR_FILE_{MAPPED,DIRTY,WRITEBACK,WRITEBACK_TEMP,UNSTABLE_NFS} counters
using the following form:
switch (idx) {
case MEMCG_NR_FILE_MAPPED:
if (charge) {
if (!PageCgroupFileMapped(pc))
SetPageCgroupFileMapped(pc);
else
val = 0;
} else {
if (PageCgroupFileMapped(pc))
ClearPageCgroupFileMapped(pc);
else
val = 0;
}
idx = MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED;
break;
...
}
/*
* Preemption is already disabled. We can use __this_cpu_xxx
*/
if (val > 0) {
__this_cpu_inc(mem->stat->count[idx]);
} else if (val < 0) {
__this_cpu_dec(mem->stat->count[idx]);
}
In my current tree, irq is never saved/restored by cgroup locking code. To
protect against interrupt reentrancy, trylock_page_cgroup() is used. As the
comment indicates, this makes the new counters fuzzy.
--
Greg
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
