Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation

From: Andrea Righi
Date: Tue Feb 23 2010 - 04:40:50 EST


On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:52:15AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > unsigned long determine_dirtyable_memory(void)
> > {
> > - unsigned long x;
> > -
> > - x = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) + global_reclaimable_pages();
> > -
> > + unsigned long memcg_memory, memory;
> > +
> > + memory = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) + global_reclaimable_pages();
> > + memcg_memory = mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_FREE_PAGES);
> > + if (memcg_memory > 0) {
>
> it could be just
>
> if (memcg_memory) {

Agreed.

> }
>
> > + memcg_memory +=
> > + mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_RECLAIMABLE_PAGES);
> > + if (memcg_memory < memory)
> > + return memcg_memory;
> > + }
> > if (!vm_highmem_is_dirtyable)
> > - x -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(x);
> > + memory -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(memory);
> >
>
> If vm_highmem_is_dirtyable=0, In that case, we can still return with
> "memcg_memory" which can be more than "memory". IOW, highmem is not
> dirtyable system wide but still we can potetially return back saying
> for this cgroup we can dirty more pages which can potenailly be acutally
> be more that system wide allowed?
>
> Because you have modified dirtyable_memory() and made it per cgroup, I
> think it automatically takes care of the cases of per cgroup dirty ratio,
> I mentioned in my previous mail. So we will use system wide dirty ratio
> to calculate the allowed dirty pages in this cgroup (dirty_ratio *
> available_memory()) and if this cgroup wrote too many pages start
> writeout?

OK, if I've understood well, you're proposing to use per-cgroup
dirty_ratio interface and do something like:

unsigned long determine_dirtyable_memory(void)
{
unsigned long memcg_memory, memory;

memory = global_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) + global_reclaimable_pages();
if (!vm_highmem_is_dirtyable)
memory -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(memory);

memcg_memory = mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_FREE_PAGES);
if (!memcg_memory)
return memory + 1; /* Ensure that we never return 0 */
memcg_memory += mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_RECLAIMABLE_PAGES);
if (!vm_highmem_is_dirtyable)
memcg_memory -= highmem_dirtyable_memory(memory) *
mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio() / 100;
if (memcg_memory < memory)
return memcg_memory;
}


>
> > - return x + 1; /* Ensure that we never return 0 */
> > + return memory + 1; /* Ensure that we never return 0 */
> > }
> >
> > void
> > @@ -421,12 +428,13 @@ get_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty,
> > unsigned long *pbdi_dirty, struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> > {
> > unsigned long background;
> > - unsigned long dirty;
> > + unsigned long dirty, dirty_bytes;
> > unsigned long available_memory = determine_dirtyable_memory();
> > struct task_struct *tsk;
> >
> > - if (vm_dirty_bytes)
> > - dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(vm_dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> > + dirty_bytes = mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes();
> > + if (dirty_bytes)
> > + dirty = DIV_ROUND_UP(dirty_bytes, PAGE_SIZE);
> > else {
> > int dirty_ratio;
> >
> > @@ -505,9 +513,17 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh,
> > &bdi_thresh, bdi);
> >
> > - nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > + nr_reclaimable = mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> > + if (nr_reclaimable == 0) {
> > + nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> > - nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> > + nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> > + } else {
> > + nr_reclaimable +=
> > + mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> > + nr_writeback =
> > + mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_WRITEBACK);
> > + }
> >
> > bdi_nr_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > bdi_nr_writeback = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> > @@ -660,6 +676,8 @@ void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > unsigned long dirty_thresh;
> >
> > for ( ; ; ) {
> > + unsigned long dirty;
> > +
> > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, NULL, NULL);
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -668,10 +686,15 @@ void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > */
> > dirty_thresh += dirty_thresh / 10; /* wheeee... */
> >
> > - if (global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) +
> > - global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) <= dirty_thresh)
> > - break;
> > - congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> > + dirty = mem_cgroup_page_state(MEMCG_NR_WRITEBACK);
> > + if (dirty < 0)
>
> dirty is unsigned long. Will above condition be ever true?
>
> Are you expecting that NR_WRITEBACK can go negative?

No, this is a bug, indeed. The right check is just "if (dirty)".

Thanks!
-Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/