linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent
@ 2020-12-02 12:14 Muchun Song
  2020-12-02 21:16 ` Roman Gushchin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Muchun Song @ 2020-12-02 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: hannes, mhocko, vdavydov.dev, akpm
  Cc: cgroups, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Muchun Song

Although the ratio of the slab is one, we also should read the ratio
from the related memory_stats instead of hard-coding. And the local
variable of size is already the value of slab_unreclaimable. So we
do not need to read again. Simplify the code here.

Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
---
 mm/memcontrol.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 9922f1510956..03a9c64560f6 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1545,12 +1545,22 @@ static int __init memory_stats_init(void)
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(memory_stats); i++) {
+		switch (memory_stats[i].idx) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
-		if (memory_stats[i].idx == NR_ANON_THPS ||
-		    memory_stats[i].idx == NR_FILE_THPS ||
-		    memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SHMEM_THPS)
+		case NR_ANON_THPS:
+		case NR_FILE_THPS:
+		case NR_SHMEM_THPS:
 			memory_stats[i].ratio = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
+			break;
 #endif
+		case NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B:
+			VM_BUG_ON(i < 1);
+			VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i - 1].idx != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
+			break;
+		default:
+			break;
+		}
+
 		VM_BUG_ON(!memory_stats[i].ratio);
 		VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i].idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT);
 	}
@@ -1587,8 +1597,10 @@ static char *memory_stat_format(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
 		seq_buf_printf(&s, "%s %llu\n", memory_stats[i].name, size);
 
 		if (unlikely(memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B)) {
-			size = memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B) +
-			       memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B);
+			int idx = i - 1;
+
+			size += memcg_page_state(memcg, memory_stats[idx].idx) *
+				memory_stats[idx].ratio;
 			seq_buf_printf(&s, "slab %llu\n", size);
 		}
 	}
-- 
2.11.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent
  2020-12-02 12:14 [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent Muchun Song
@ 2020-12-02 21:16 ` Roman Gushchin
  2020-12-03  2:53   ` [External] " Muchun Song
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roman Gushchin @ 2020-12-02 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Muchun Song
  Cc: hannes, mhocko, vdavydov.dev, akpm, cgroups, linux-mm, linux-kernel

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:14:34PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> Although the ratio of the slab is one, we also should read the ratio
> from the related memory_stats instead of hard-coding. And the local
> variable of size is already the value of slab_unreclaimable. So we
> do not need to read again. Simplify the code here.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Hi Muchun!

> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 9922f1510956..03a9c64560f6 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1545,12 +1545,22 @@ static int __init memory_stats_init(void)
>  	int i;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(memory_stats); i++) {
> +		switch (memory_stats[i].idx) {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> -		if (memory_stats[i].idx == NR_ANON_THPS ||
> -		    memory_stats[i].idx == NR_FILE_THPS ||
> -		    memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SHMEM_THPS)
> +		case NR_ANON_THPS:
> +		case NR_FILE_THPS:
> +		case NR_SHMEM_THPS:
>  			memory_stats[i].ratio = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
> +			break;
>  #endif
> +		case NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B:
> +			VM_BUG_ON(i < 1);
> +			VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i - 1].idx != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);

Please, convert these to BUILD_BUG_ON(), they don't have to be runtime checks.


> +			break;
> +		default:
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
>  		VM_BUG_ON(!memory_stats[i].ratio);
>  		VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i].idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT);
>  	}
> @@ -1587,8 +1597,10 @@ static char *memory_stat_format(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  		seq_buf_printf(&s, "%s %llu\n", memory_stats[i].name, size);
>

Can you, please, add a small comment here stating that we're printing
unreclaimable, reclaimable and the sum of both? It will simplify the reading of the code.

>  		if (unlikely(memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B)) {
> -			size = memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B) +
> -			       memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B);
> +			int idx = i - 1;
> +
> +			size += memcg_page_state(memcg, memory_stats[idx].idx) *
> +				memory_stats[idx].ratio;
>  			seq_buf_printf(&s, "slab %llu\n", size);
>  		}
>  	}

Otherwise the patch looks good to me! Please, feel free to add
Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
after addressing my comments.

Thanks!
> -- 
> 2.11.0
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent
  2020-12-02 21:16 ` Roman Gushchin
@ 2020-12-03  2:53   ` Muchun Song
  2020-12-03  3:20     ` Roman Gushchin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Muchun Song @ 2020-12-03  2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Roman Gushchin
  Cc: Johannes Weiner, Michal Hocko, Vladimir Davydov, Andrew Morton,
	Cgroups, Linux Memory Management List, LKML

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:16 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:14:34PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > Although the ratio of the slab is one, we also should read the ratio
> > from the related memory_stats instead of hard-coding. And the local
> > variable of size is already the value of slab_unreclaimable. So we
> > do not need to read again. Simplify the code here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Hi Muchun!
>
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 9922f1510956..03a9c64560f6 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -1545,12 +1545,22 @@ static int __init memory_stats_init(void)
> >       int i;
> >
> >       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(memory_stats); i++) {
> > +             switch (memory_stats[i].idx) {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > -             if (memory_stats[i].idx == NR_ANON_THPS ||
> > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_FILE_THPS ||
> > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SHMEM_THPS)
> > +             case NR_ANON_THPS:
> > +             case NR_FILE_THPS:
> > +             case NR_SHMEM_THPS:
> >                       memory_stats[i].ratio = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
> > +                     break;
> >  #endif
> > +             case NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B:
> > +                     VM_BUG_ON(i < 1);
> > +                     VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i - 1].idx != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
>
> Please, convert these to BUILD_BUG_ON(), they don't have to be runtime checks.

Agree. But here we cannot use BUILD_BUG_ON(). The compiler will
complain about it.

>
>
> > +                     break;
> > +             default:
> > +                     break;
> > +             }
> > +
> >               VM_BUG_ON(!memory_stats[i].ratio);
> >               VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i].idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT);
> >       }
> > @@ -1587,8 +1597,10 @@ static char *memory_stat_format(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >               seq_buf_printf(&s, "%s %llu\n", memory_stats[i].name, size);
> >
>
> Can you, please, add a small comment here stating that we're printing
> unreclaimable, reclaimable and the sum of both? It will simplify the reading of the code.

Will do.

>
> >               if (unlikely(memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B)) {
> > -                     size = memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B) +
> > -                            memcg_page_state(memcg, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B);
> > +                     int idx = i - 1;
> > +
> > +                     size += memcg_page_state(memcg, memory_stats[idx].idx) *
> > +                             memory_stats[idx].ratio;
> >                       seq_buf_printf(&s, "slab %llu\n", size);
> >               }
> >       }
>
> Otherwise the patch looks good to me! Please, feel free to add
> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> after addressing my comments.
>
> Thanks!
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >



-- 
Yours,
Muchun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent
  2020-12-03  2:53   ` [External] " Muchun Song
@ 2020-12-03  3:20     ` Roman Gushchin
  2020-12-03  3:36       ` Muchun Song
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roman Gushchin @ 2020-12-03  3:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Muchun Song
  Cc: Johannes Weiner, Michal Hocko, Vladimir Davydov, Andrew Morton,
	Cgroups, Linux Memory Management List, LKML

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:53:33AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:16 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:14:34PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > Although the ratio of the slab is one, we also should read the ratio
> > > from the related memory_stats instead of hard-coding. And the local
> > > variable of size is already the value of slab_unreclaimable. So we
> > > do not need to read again. Simplify the code here.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/memcontrol.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > Hi Muchun!
> >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 9922f1510956..03a9c64560f6 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -1545,12 +1545,22 @@ static int __init memory_stats_init(void)
> > >       int i;
> > >
> > >       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(memory_stats); i++) {
> > > +             switch (memory_stats[i].idx) {
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > > -             if (memory_stats[i].idx == NR_ANON_THPS ||
> > > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_FILE_THPS ||
> > > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SHMEM_THPS)
> > > +             case NR_ANON_THPS:
> > > +             case NR_FILE_THPS:
> > > +             case NR_SHMEM_THPS:
> > >                       memory_stats[i].ratio = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
> > > +                     break;
> > >  #endif
> > > +             case NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B:
> > > +                     VM_BUG_ON(i < 1);
> > > +                     VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i - 1].idx != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
> >
> > Please, convert these to BUILD_BUG_ON(), they don't have to be runtime checks.
> 
> Agree. But here we cannot use BUILD_BUG_ON(). The compiler will
> complain about it.

We can!

We just need to change the condition. All we really need to check is that
NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B immediately following NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B.

Something like BUILD_BUG_ON(NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B + 1)
should work (completely untested).

> 
> >
> >
> > > +                     break;
> > > +             default:
> > > +                     break;
> > > +             }
> > > +
> > >               VM_BUG_ON(!memory_stats[i].ratio);
> > >               VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i].idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT);
> > >       }
> > > @@ -1587,8 +1597,10 @@ static char *memory_stat_format(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > >               seq_buf_printf(&s, "%s %llu\n", memory_stats[i].name, size);
> > >
> >
> > Can you, please, add a small comment here stating that we're printing
> > unreclaimable, reclaimable and the sum of both? It will simplify the reading of the code.
> 
> Will do.

Thank you!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent
  2020-12-03  3:20     ` Roman Gushchin
@ 2020-12-03  3:36       ` Muchun Song
  2020-12-03  3:49         ` Roman Gushchin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Muchun Song @ 2020-12-03  3:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Roman Gushchin
  Cc: Johannes Weiner, Michal Hocko, Vladimir Davydov, Andrew Morton,
	Cgroups, Linux Memory Management List, LKML

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:21 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:53:33AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:16 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:14:34PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > Although the ratio of the slab is one, we also should read the ratio
> > > > from the related memory_stats instead of hard-coding. And the local
> > > > variable of size is already the value of slab_unreclaimable. So we
> > > > do not need to read again. Simplify the code here.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  mm/memcontrol.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> > > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Hi Muchun!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > index 9922f1510956..03a9c64560f6 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > @@ -1545,12 +1545,22 @@ static int __init memory_stats_init(void)
> > > >       int i;
> > > >
> > > >       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(memory_stats); i++) {
> > > > +             switch (memory_stats[i].idx) {
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > > > -             if (memory_stats[i].idx == NR_ANON_THPS ||
> > > > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_FILE_THPS ||
> > > > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SHMEM_THPS)
> > > > +             case NR_ANON_THPS:
> > > > +             case NR_FILE_THPS:
> > > > +             case NR_SHMEM_THPS:
> > > >                       memory_stats[i].ratio = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
> > > > +                     break;
> > > >  #endif
> > > > +             case NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B:
> > > > +                     VM_BUG_ON(i < 1);
> > > > +                     VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i - 1].idx != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
> > >
> > > Please, convert these to BUILD_BUG_ON(), they don't have to be runtime checks.
> >
> > Agree. But here we cannot use BUILD_BUG_ON(). The compiler will
> > complain about it.
>
> We can!
>
> We just need to change the condition. All we really need to check is that
> NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B immediately following NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B.

But I think that we need to check that memory_stats[i] immediately following
memory_stats[j] where i is the index of NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B and
j is the index of NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B.

>
> Something like BUILD_BUG_ON(NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B + 1)

So this cannot work. Thanks.

> should work (completely untested).

>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > +                     break;
> > > > +             default:
> > > > +                     break;
> > > > +             }
> > > > +
> > > >               VM_BUG_ON(!memory_stats[i].ratio);
> > > >               VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i].idx >= MEMCG_NR_STAT);
> > > >       }
> > > > @@ -1587,8 +1597,10 @@ static char *memory_stat_format(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > >               seq_buf_printf(&s, "%s %llu\n", memory_stats[i].name, size);
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you, please, add a small comment here stating that we're printing
> > > unreclaimable, reclaimable and the sum of both? It will simplify the reading of the code.
> >
> > Will do.
>
> Thank you!



-- 
Yours,
Muchun

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent
  2020-12-03  3:36       ` Muchun Song
@ 2020-12-03  3:49         ` Roman Gushchin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roman Gushchin @ 2020-12-03  3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Muchun Song
  Cc: Johannes Weiner, Michal Hocko, Vladimir Davydov, Andrew Morton,
	Cgroups, Linux Memory Management List, LKML

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:36:54AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:21 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:53:33AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:16 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:14:34PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > > Although the ratio of the slab is one, we also should read the ratio
> > > > > from the related memory_stats instead of hard-coding. And the local
> > > > > variable of size is already the value of slab_unreclaimable. So we
> > > > > do not need to read again. Simplify the code here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  mm/memcontrol.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Hi Muchun!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > index 9922f1510956..03a9c64560f6 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > @@ -1545,12 +1545,22 @@ static int __init memory_stats_init(void)
> > > > >       int i;
> > > > >
> > > > >       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(memory_stats); i++) {
> > > > > +             switch (memory_stats[i].idx) {
> > > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > > > > -             if (memory_stats[i].idx == NR_ANON_THPS ||
> > > > > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_FILE_THPS ||
> > > > > -                 memory_stats[i].idx == NR_SHMEM_THPS)
> > > > > +             case NR_ANON_THPS:
> > > > > +             case NR_FILE_THPS:
> > > > > +             case NR_SHMEM_THPS:
> > > > >                       memory_stats[i].ratio = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
> > > > > +                     break;
> > > > >  #endif
> > > > > +             case NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B:
> > > > > +                     VM_BUG_ON(i < 1);
> > > > > +                     VM_BUG_ON(memory_stats[i - 1].idx != NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
> > > >
> > > > Please, convert these to BUILD_BUG_ON(), they don't have to be runtime checks.
> > >
> > > Agree. But here we cannot use BUILD_BUG_ON(). The compiler will
> > > complain about it.
> >
> > We can!
> >
> > We just need to change the condition. All we really need to check is that
> > NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B immediately following NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B.
> 
> But I think that we need to check that memory_stats[i] immediately following
> memory_stats[j] where i is the index of NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B and
> j is the index of NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B.

Ok, I see. Thanks!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-03  3:50 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-12-02 12:14 [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: make the slab calculation consistent Muchun Song
2020-12-02 21:16 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-12-03  2:53   ` [External] " Muchun Song
2020-12-03  3:20     ` Roman Gushchin
2020-12-03  3:36       ` Muchun Song
2020-12-03  3:49         ` Roman Gushchin

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).