On Wed 14-08-19 21:54:12, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:32:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 12-08-19 15:29:11, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > I've noticed that the "slab" value in memory.stat is sometimes 0,
> > > even if some children memory cgroups have a non-zero "slab" value.
> > > The following investigation showed that this is the result
> > > of the kmem_cache reparenting in combination with the per-cpu
> > > batching of slab vmstats.
> > > 
> > > At the offlining some vmstat value may leave in the percpu cache,
> > > not being propagated upwards by the cgroup hierarchy. It means
> > > that stats on ancestor levels are lower than actual. Later when
> > > slab pages are released, the precise number of pages is substracted
> > > on the parent level, making the value negative. We don't show negative
> > > values, 0 is printed instead.
> > 
> > So the difference with other counters is that slab ones are reparented
> > and that's why we have treat them specially? I guess that is what the
> > comment in the code suggest but being explicit in the changelog would be
> > nice.
> 
> Right. And I believe the list can be extended further. Objects which
> are often outliving the origin memory cgroup (e.g. pagecache pages)
> are pinning dead cgroups, so it will be cool to reparent them all.
> 
> > 
> > [...]
> > > -static void memcg_flush_percpu_vmstats(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > +static void memcg_flush_percpu_vmstats(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool 
> > > slab_only)
> > >  {
> > >   unsigned long stat[MEMCG_NR_STAT];
> > >   struct mem_cgroup *mi;
> > >   int node, cpu, i;
> > > + int min_idx, max_idx;
> > >  
> > > - for (i = 0; i < MEMCG_NR_STAT; i++)
> > > + if (slab_only) {
> > > +         min_idx = NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE;
> > > +         max_idx = NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE;
> > > + } else {
> > > +         min_idx = 0;
> > > +         max_idx = MEMCG_NR_STAT;
> > > + }
> > 
> > This is just ugly has hell! I really detest how this implicitly makes
> > counters value very special without any note in the node_stat_item
> > definition. Is it such a big deal to have a per counter flush and do
> > the loop over all counters resp. specific counters around it so much
> > worse? This should be really a slow path to safe few instructions or
> > cache misses, no?
> 
> I believe that it is a big deal, because it's
> NR_VMSTAT_ITEMS * all memory cgroups * online cpus * numa nodes.

I am not sure I follow. I just meant to remove all for (i = 0; i < 
MEMCG_NR_STAT; i++)
from flushing and do that loop around the flushing function. That would
mean that the NR_SLAB_$FOO wouldn't have to play tricks and simply call
the flushing for the two counters.

> If the goal is to merge it with cpu hotplug code, I'd think about passing
> cpumask to it, and do the opposite. Also I'm not sure I understand
> why reordering loops will make it less ugly.

And adding a cpu/nodemasks would just work with that as well, right.

> 
> But you're right, a comment nearby NR_SLAB_(UN)RECLAIMABLE definition
> is totaly worth it. How about something like:
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> index 8b5f758942a2..231bcbe5dcc6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> @@ -215,8 +215,9 @@ enum node_stat_item {
>         NR_INACTIVE_FILE,       /*  "     "     "   "       "         */
>         NR_ACTIVE_FILE,         /*  "     "     "   "       "         */
>         NR_UNEVICTABLE,         /*  "     "     "   "       "         */
> -       NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE,
> -       NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE,
> +       NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE,    /* Please, do not reorder this item */
> +       NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE,  /* and this one without looking at
> +                                * memcg_flush_percpu_vmstats() first. */
>         NR_ISOLATED_ANON,       /* Temporary isolated pages from anon lru */
>         NR_ISOLATED_FILE,       /* Temporary isolated pages from file lru */
>         WORKINGSET_NODES,

Thanks, that is an improvement.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Reply via email to