On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:38:25PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:00:33PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Spill percpu stats and events data to corresponding before releasing
> > percpu memory.
> >
> > Although per-cpu stats are never exactly precise, dropping them on
> > floor regularly may lead to an accumulation of an error. So, it's
> > safer to sync them before releasing.
> >
> > To minimize the number of atomic updates, let's sum all stats/events
> > on all cpus locally, and then make a single update per entry.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > mm/memcontrol.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 18e863890392..b7eb6fac735e 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -4612,11 +4612,63 @@ static int mem_cgroup_css_online(struct
> > cgroup_subsys_state *css)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Spill all per-cpu stats and events into atomics.
> > + * Try to minimize the number of atomic writes by gathering data from
> > + * all cpus locally, and then make one atomic update.
> > + * No locking is required, because no one has an access to
> > + * the offlined percpu data.
> > + */
> > +static void mem_cgroup_spill_offlined_percpu(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > + struct memcg_vmstats_percpu __percpu *vmstats_percpu;
> > + struct lruvec_stat __percpu *lruvec_stat_cpu;
> > + struct mem_cgroup_per_node *pn;
> > + int cpu, i;
> > + long x;
> > +
> > + vmstats_percpu = memcg->vmstats_percpu_offlined;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < MEMCG_NR_STAT; i++) {
> > + int nid;
> > +
> > + x = 0;
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > + x += per_cpu(vmstats_percpu->stat[i], cpu);
> > + if (x)
> > + atomic_long_add(x, &memcg->vmstats[i]);
> > +
> > + if (i >= NR_VM_NODE_STAT_ITEMS)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + for_each_node(nid) {
> > + pn = mem_cgroup_nodeinfo(memcg, nid);
> > + lruvec_stat_cpu = pn->lruvec_stat_cpu_offlined;
> > +
> > + x = 0;
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > + x += per_cpu(lruvec_stat_cpu->count[i], cpu);
> > + if (x)
> > + atomic_long_add(x, &pn->lruvec_stat[i]);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < NR_VM_EVENT_ITEMS; i++) {
> > + x = 0;
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > + x += per_cpu(vmstats_percpu->events[i], cpu);
> > + if (x)
> > + atomic_long_add(x, &memcg->vmevents[i]);
> > + }
>
> This looks good, but couldn't this be merged with the cpu offlining?
> It seems to be exactly the same code, except for the nesting of the
> for_each_possible_cpu() iteration here.
>
> This could be a function that takes a CPU argument and then iterates
> the cgroups and stat items to collect and spill the counters of that
> specified CPU; offlining would call it once, and this spill code here
> would call it for_each_possible_cpu().
>
> We shouldn't need the atomicity of this_cpu_xchg() during hotunplug,
> the scheduler isn't even active on that CPU anymore when it's called.
Good point!
I initially tried to adapt the cpu offlining code, but it didn't work
well: the code became too complex and ugly. But the opposite can be done
easily: mem_cgroup_spill_offlined_percpu() can take a cpumask,
and the cpu offlining code will look like:
for_each_mem_cgroup(memcg)
mem_cgroup_spill_offlined_percpu(memcg, cpumask);
I'll master a separate patch.
Thank you!
