Re: [patch 2/8] mm: memcg-aware global reclaim

[Johannes Weiner]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 08:25:19AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> A few small nitpicks:
> 
> > +struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_hierarchy_walk(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> > +					     struct mem_cgroup *prev)
> > +{
> > +	struct mem_cgroup *mem;
> > +
> > +	if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> > +	if (!root)
> > +		root = root_mem_cgroup;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Even without hierarchy explicitely enabled in the root
> > +	 * memcg, it is the ultimate parent of all memcgs.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!(root == root_mem_cgroup || root->use_hierarchy))
> > +		return root;
> 
> The logic here reads a bit weird, why not simply:
> 
> 	 /*
> 	  * Even without hierarchy explicitely enabled in the root
> 	  * memcg, it is the ultimate parent of all memcgs.
> 	  */
> 	if (!root || root == root_mem_cgroup)
> 		return root_mem_cgroup;
> 	if (root->use_hierarchy)
> 		return root;

What you are proposing is not equivalent, so... case in point!  It's
meant to do the hierarchy walk for when foo->use_hierarchy, obviously,
but ALSO for root_mem_cgroup, which is parent to everyone else even
without use_hierarchy set.  I changed it to read like this:

	if (!root)
		root = root_mem_cgroup;
	if (!root->use_hierarchy && root != root_mem_cgroup)
		return root;
	/* actually iterate hierarchy */

Does that make more sense?

Another alternative would be

	if (root->use_hierarchy || root == root_mem_cgroup) {
		/* most of the function body */
	}

but that quickly ends up with ugly linewraps...

> >  /*
> >   * This is a basic per-zone page freer.  Used by both kswapd and direct reclaim.
> >   */
> > -static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > -				struct scan_control *sc)
> > +static void do_shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > +			   struct scan_control *sc)
> 
> It actually is the per-memcg shrinker now, and thus should be called
> shrink_memcg.

Per-zone per-memcg, actually.  shrink_zone_memcg?

> > +		sc->mem_cgroup = mem;
> > +		do_shrink_zone(priority, zone, sc);
> 
> Any passing the mem_cgroup explicitly instead of hiding it in the
> scan_control would make that much more obvious.  If there's a good
> reason to pass it in the structure the same probably applies to the
> zone and priority, too.

Stack frame size, I guess.  But unreadable code can't be the answer to
this problem.  I'll try to pass it explicitely and see what the damage
is.

> Shouldn't we also have a non-cgroups stub of shrink_zone to directly
> call do_shrink_zone/shrink_memcg with a NULL memcg and thus optimize
> the whole loop away for it?

On !CONFIG_MEMCG, the code in shrink_zone() looks effectively like
this:

	first = mem = NULL;
	for (;;) {
		sc->mem_cgroup = mem;
		do_shrink_zone()
		if (reclaimed enough)
			break;
		mem = NULL;
		if (first == mem)
			break;
	}

I have gcc version 4.6.0 20110530 (Red Hat 4.6.0-9) (GCC) on this
machine, and it manages to optimize the loop away completely.

The only increase in code size I could see was from all callers having
to do the extra sc->mem_cgroup = NULL.  But I guess there is no way
around this.
--
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/