OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH v5 00/14] kmem controller for memcg.
Re: [PATCH v5 04/14] kmem accounting basic infrastructure [message #48435 is a reply to message #48396] Wed, 17 October 2012 22:08 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
David Rientjes is currently offline  David Rientjes
Messages: 59
Registered: November 2006
Member
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

> This patch adds the basic infrastructure for the accounting of kernel
> memory. To control that, the following files are created:
>
> * memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes
> * memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes
> * memory.kmem.failcnt
> * memory.kmem.max_usage_in_bytes
>
> They have the same meaning of their user memory counterparts. They
> reflect the state of the "kmem" res_counter.
>
> Per cgroup kmem memory accounting is not enabled until a limit is set
> for the group. Once the limit is set the accounting cannot be disabled
> for that group. This means that after the patch is applied, no
> behavioral changes exists for whoever is still using memcg to control
> their memory usage, until memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes is set for the
> first time.
>
> We always account to both user and kernel resource_counters. This
> effectively means that an independent kernel limit is in place when the
> limit is set to a lower value than the user memory. A equal or higher
> value means that the user limit will always hit first, meaning that kmem
> is effectively unlimited.
>
> People who want to track kernel memory but not limit it, can set this
> limit to a very high number (like RESOURCE_MAX - 1page - that no one
> will ever hit, or equal to the user memory)
>
> [ v4: make kmem files part of the main array;
> do not allow limit to be set for non-empty cgroups ]
> [ v5: cosmetic changes ]
>
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
> Acked-by: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 115 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 71d259e..30eafeb 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -266,6 +266,10 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> };
>
> /*
> + * the counter to account for kernel memory usage.
> + */
> + struct res_counter kmem;
> + /*
> * Per cgroup active and inactive list, similar to the
> * per zone LRU lists.
> */
> @@ -280,6 +284,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> * Should the accounting and control be hierarchical, per subtree?
> */
> bool use_hierarchy;
> + unsigned long kmem_accounted; /* See KMEM_ACCOUNTED_*, below */

I think this should be named kmem_account_flags or kmem_flags, otherwise
it appears that this is the actual account.

>
> bool oom_lock;
> atomic_t under_oom;
> @@ -332,6 +337,20 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> #endif
> };
>
> +/* internal only representation about the status of kmem accounting. */
> +enum {
> + KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE = 0, /* accounted by this cgroup itself */
> +};
> +
> +#define KMEM_ACCOUNTED_MASK (1 << KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE)
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM

memcg->kmem_accounted isn't only defined for this configuration, so would
it be simpler to define this unconditionally?

> +static void memcg_kmem_set_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)

inline?

> +{
> + set_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_accounted);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> /* Stuffs for move charges at task migration. */
> /*
> * Types of charges to be moved. "move_charge_at_immitgrate" is treated as a
> @@ -390,6 +409,7 @@ enum res_type {
> _MEM,
> _MEMSWAP,
> _OOM_TYPE,
> + _KMEM,
> };
>
> #define MEMFILE_PRIVATE(x, val) ((x) << 16 | (val))
> @@ -1433,6 +1453,10 @@ done:
> res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_USAGE) >> 10,
> res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT) >> 10,
> res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_FAILCNT));
> + printk(KERN_INFO "kmem: usage %llukB, limit %llukB, failcnt %llu\n",
> + res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->kmem, RES_USAGE) >> 10,
> + res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->kmem, RES_LIMIT) >> 10,
> + res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->kmem, RES_FAILCNT));
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -3940,6 +3964,9 @@ static ssize_t mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft,
> else
> val = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, name);
> break;
> + case _KMEM:
> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->kmem, name);
> + break;
> default:
> BUG();
> }
> @@ -3947,6 +3974,57 @@ static ssize_t mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft,
> len = scnprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%llu\n", (unsigned long long)val);
> return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, nbytes, ppos, str, len);
> }
> +
> +static int memcg_update_kmem_limit(struct cgroup *cont, u64 val)
> +{
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont);
> + /*
> + * For simplicity, we won't allow this to be disabled. It also can't
> + * be changed if the cgroup has children already, or if tasks had
> + * already joined.
> + *
> + * If tasks join before we set the limit, a person looking at
> + * kmem.usage_in_bytes will have no way to determine when it took
> + * place, which makes the value quite meaningless.
> + *
> + * After it first became limited, changes in the value of the limit are
> + * of course permitted.
> + *
> + * Taking the cgroup_lock is really offensive, but it is so far the only
> + * way to guarantee that no children will appear. There are plenty of
> + * other offenders, and they should all go away. Fine grained locking
> + * is probably the way to go here. When we are fully hierarchical, we
> + * can also get rid of the use_hierarchy check.

Not sure it's so offensive, it's a pretty standard way of ensuring that
cont->children doesn't get manipulated in a race.

> + */
> + cgroup_lock();
> + mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
> + if (!memcg->kmem_accounted && val != RESOURCE_MAX) {
> + if (cgroup_task_count(cont) || (memcg->use_hierarchy &&
> + !list_empty(&cont->children))) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
> + VM_BUG_ON(ret);
> +
> + memcg_kmem_set_active(memcg);
> + } else
> + ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
> +out:
> + mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> + cgroup_unlock();
> +#endif
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void memcg_propagate_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> + struct mem_cgroup *parent)
> +{
> + memcg->kmem_accounted = parent->kmem_accounted;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * The user of this function is...
> * RES_LIMIT.
> @@ -3978,8 +4056,12 @@ static int mem_cgroup_write(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft,
> break;
> if (type == _MEM)
> ret = mem_cgroup_resize_limit(memcg, val);
> - else
> + else if (type == _MEMSWAP)
> ret = mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(memcg, val);
> + else if (type == _KMEM)
> + ret = memcg_update_kmem_limit(cont, val);
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;

I like how this is done in a maintainable way to ensure no other types can
inadvertently update the memsw limit as it was previously written. All
other returns of -EINVAL just cause the switch statement to break, though,
rather than return directly.

> break;
> case RES_SOFT_LIMIT:
> ret = res_counter_memparse_write_strategy(buffer, &val);
> @@ -4045,12 +4127,16 @@ static int mem_cgroup_reset(struct cgroup *cont, unsigned int event)
> case RES_MAX_USAGE:
> if (type == _MEM)
> res_counter_reset_max(&memcg->res);
> + else if (type == _KMEM)
> + res_counter_reset_max(&memcg->kmem);

Could this be written in the same way above, i.e. check _MEMSWAP to pass
memcg->memsw, _KMEM for memcg->kmem, etc?

> else
> res_counter_reset_max(&memcg->memsw);
> break;
> case RES_FAILCNT:
> if (type == _MEM)
> res_counter_reset_failcnt(&memcg->res);
> + else if (type == _KMEM)
> + res_counter_reset_failcnt(&memcg->kmem);

Same. ...

[ Show the rest of the message ]

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH RFC] sched: boost throttled entities on wakeups
Next Topic: [PATCH v6 01/10] ipc: remove forced assignment of selected message
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri May 17 09:40:31 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00428 seconds
Powered by FUDforum Powered by Virtuozzo Containers