Re: [PATCH v1 6/9] memcg: sleep during flushing stats in safe contexts

From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>, "Josef Bacik" <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	"Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"Zefan Li" <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
	"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	"Shakeel Butt" <shakeelb@google.com>,
	"Muchun Song" <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
	"Vasily Averin" <vasily.averin@linux.dev>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/9] memcg: sleep during flushing stats in safe contexts
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 12:26:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYBO9QNZOyMt8WC0bd=wB9m1H3PHdxqPpWBx5HpUAS4Ug@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZCM6m/4ujEqvFVsn@cmpxchg.org>

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:06 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:45:19AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:35 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:16:35AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > >  void mem_cgroup_flush_stats_ratelimited(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >       if (time_after64(jiffies_64, READ_ONCE(flush_next_time)))
> > > > -             mem_cgroup_flush_stats();
> > > > +             mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic();
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > This should probably be mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic_ratelimited().
> > >
> > > (Whee, kinda long, but that's alright. Very specialized caller...)
> >
> > It should, but the following patch makes it non-atomic anyway, so I
> > thought I wouldn't clutter the diff by renaming it here and then
> > reverting it back in the next patch.
> >
> > There is an argument for maintaining a clean history tho in case the
> > next patch is reverted separately (which is the reason I put it in a
> > separate patch to begin with) -- so perhaps I should rename it here to
> > mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic_ratelimited () and back to
> > mem_cgroup_flush_stats_ratelimited() in the next patch, just for
> > consistency?
>
> Sounds good to me. It's pretty minor churn.

Ack. Will do so for v2. Thanks!

>
> > > Btw, can you guys think of a reason against moving the threshold check
> > > into the common function? It would then apply to the time-limited
> > > flushes as well, but that shouldn't hurt anything. This would make the
> > > code even simpler:
> >
> > I think the point of having the threshold check outside the common
> > function is that the periodic flusher always flushes, regardless of
> > the threshold, to keep rstat flushing from critical contexts as cheap
> > as possible.
>
> Good point. Yeah, let's keep it separate then.

Agreed.

>
> > > > @@ -2845,7 +2845,7 @@ static void prepare_scan_count(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> > > >        * Flush the memory cgroup stats, so that we read accurate per-memcg
> > > >        * lruvec stats for heuristics.
> > > >        */
> > > > -     mem_cgroup_flush_stats();
> > > > +     mem_cgroup_flush_stats_atomic();
> > >
> > > I'm thinking this one could be non-atomic as well. It's called fairly
> > > high up in reclaim without any locks held.
> >
> > A later patch does exactly that. I put making the reclaim and refault
> > paths non-atomic in separate patches to easily revert them if we see a
> > regression. Let me know if this is too defensive and if you'd rather
> > have them squashed.
>
> No, good call. I should have just looked ahead first :-)