During the reclaiming slab of a memcg, shrink_slab iterates
over all registered shrinkers in the system, and tries to count
and consume objects related to the cgroup. In case of memory
pressure, this behaves bad: I observe high system time and
time spent in list_lru_count_one() for many processes on RHEL7
kernel (collected via $perf record --call-graph fp -j k -a):

0,50%  nixstatsagent  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] _raw_spin_lock                [k] 
_raw_spin_lock
0,26%  nixstatsagent  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] shrink_slab                   [k] 
shrink_slab
0,23%  nixstatsagent  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] super_cache_count             [k] 
super_cache_count
0,15%  nixstatsagent  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] __list_lru_count_one.isra.2   [k] 
_raw_spin_lock
0,15%  nixstatsagent  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] list_lru_count_one            [k] 
__list_lru_count_one.isra.2

0,94%  mysqld         [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] _raw_spin_lock                [k] 
_raw_spin_lock
0,57%  mysqld         [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] shrink_slab                   [k] 
shrink_slab
0,51%  mysqld         [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] super_cache_count             [k] 
super_cache_count
0,32%  mysqld         [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] __list_lru_count_one.isra.2   [k] 
_raw_spin_lock
0,32%  mysqld         [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] list_lru_count_one            [k] 
__list_lru_count_one.isra.2

0,73%  sshd           [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] _raw_spin_lock                [k] 
_raw_spin_lock
0,35%  sshd           [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] shrink_slab                   [k] 
shrink_slab
0,32%  sshd           [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] super_cache_count             [k] 
super_cache_count
0,21%  sshd           [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] __list_lru_count_one.isra.2   [k] 
_raw_spin_lock
0,21%  sshd           [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] list_lru_count_one            [k] 
__list_lru_count_one.isra.2

This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
which count LRU nr_items) more effective.
It allows list_lru_node::memcg_lrus to be RCU-accessed, and makes
__list_lru_count_one() count nr_items lockless to minimize
overhead introduced by locking operation, and to make parallel
reclaims more scalable.

Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktk...@virtuozzo.com>
Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov....@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/list_lru.h |    3 ++
 mm/list_lru.c            |   59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/list_lru.h b/include/linux/list_lru.h
index fa7fd03cb5f9..a55258100e40 100644
--- a/include/linux/list_lru.h
+++ b/include/linux/list_lru.h
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ struct list_lru_one {
 };
 
 struct list_lru_memcg {
+       struct rcu_head         rcu;
        /* array of per cgroup lists, indexed by memcg_cache_id */
        struct list_lru_one     *lru[0];
 };
@@ -42,7 +43,7 @@ struct list_lru_node {
        struct list_lru_one     lru;
 #if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && !defined(CONFIG_SLOB)
        /* for cgroup aware lrus points to per cgroup lists, otherwise NULL */
-       struct list_lru_memcg   *memcg_lrus;
+       struct list_lru_memcg   __rcu *memcg_lrus;
 #endif
        long nr_items;
 } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
diff --git a/mm/list_lru.c b/mm/list_lru.c
index 7a40fa2be858..9fdb24818dae 100644
--- a/mm/list_lru.c
+++ b/mm/list_lru.c
@@ -52,14 +52,15 @@ static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru 
*lru)
 static inline struct list_lru_one *
 list_lru_from_memcg_idx(struct list_lru_node *nlru, int idx)
 {
+       struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
        /*
-        * The lock protects the array of per cgroup lists from relocation
-        * (see memcg_update_list_lru_node).
+        * Either lock or RCU protects the array of per cgroup lists
+        * from relocation (see memcg_update_list_lru_node).
         */
-       lockdep_assert_held(&nlru->lock);
-       if (nlru->memcg_lrus && idx >= 0)
-               return nlru->memcg_lrus->lru[idx];
-
+       memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_check(nlru->memcg_lrus,
+                                          lockdep_is_held(&nlru->lock));
+       if (memcg_lrus && idx >= 0)
+               return memcg_lrus->lru[idx];
        return &nlru->lru;
 }
 
@@ -168,10 +169,10 @@ static unsigned long __list_lru_count_one(struct list_lru 
*lru,
        struct list_lru_one *l;
        unsigned long count;
 
-       spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
+       rcu_read_lock();
        l = list_lru_from_memcg_idx(nlru, memcg_idx);
        count = l->nr_items;
-       spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
+       rcu_read_unlock();
 
        return count;
 }
@@ -323,24 +324,33 @@ static int __memcg_init_list_lru_node(struct 
list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus,
 
 static int memcg_init_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru)
 {
+       struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
        int size = memcg_nr_cache_ids;
 
-       nlru->memcg_lrus = kmalloc(size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
-       if (!nlru->memcg_lrus)
+       memcg_lrus = kmalloc(sizeof(*memcg_lrus) +
+                            size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
+       if (!memcg_lrus)
                return -ENOMEM;
 
-       if (__memcg_init_list_lru_node(nlru->memcg_lrus, 0, size)) {
-               kfree(nlru->memcg_lrus);
+       if (__memcg_init_list_lru_node(memcg_lrus, 0, size)) {
+               kfree(memcg_lrus);
                return -ENOMEM;
        }
+       RCU_INIT_POINTER(nlru->memcg_lrus, memcg_lrus);
 
        return 0;
 }
 
 static void memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru)
 {
-       __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(nlru->memcg_lrus, 0, memcg_nr_cache_ids);
-       kfree(nlru->memcg_lrus);
+       struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
+       /*
+        * This is called when shrinker has already been unregistered,
+        * and nobody can use it. So, there is no need to use kfree_rcu().
+        */
+       memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_protected(nlru->memcg_lrus, true);
+       __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(memcg_lrus, 0, memcg_nr_cache_ids);
+       kfree(memcg_lrus);
 }
 
 static int memcg_update_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru,
@@ -350,8 +360,9 @@ static int memcg_update_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node 
*nlru,
 
        BUG_ON(old_size > new_size);
 
-       old = nlru->memcg_lrus;
-       new = kmalloc(new_size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
+       old = rcu_dereference_protected(nlru->memcg_lrus,
+                                       lockdep_is_held(&list_lrus_mutex));
+       new = kmalloc(sizeof(*new) + new_size * sizeof(void *), GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!new)
                return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -360,29 +371,33 @@ static int memcg_update_list_lru_node(struct 
list_lru_node *nlru,
                return -ENOMEM;
        }
 
-       memcpy(new, old, old_size * sizeof(void *));
+       memcpy(&new->lru, &old->lru, old_size * sizeof(void *));
 
        /*
-        * The lock guarantees that we won't race with a reader
-        * (see list_lru_from_memcg_idx).
+        * The locking below allows readers that hold nlru->lock avoid taking
+        * rcu_read_lock (see list_lru_from_memcg_idx).
         *
         * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
         * we have to use IRQ-safe primitives here to avoid deadlock.
         */
        spin_lock_irq(&nlru->lock);
-       nlru->memcg_lrus = new;
+       rcu_assign_pointer(nlru->memcg_lrus, new);
        spin_unlock_irq(&nlru->lock);
 
-       kfree(old);
+       kfree_rcu(old, rcu);
        return 0;
 }
 
 static void memcg_cancel_update_list_lru_node(struct list_lru_node *nlru,
                                              int old_size, int new_size)
 {
+       struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus;
+
+       memcg_lrus = rcu_dereference_protected(nlru->memcg_lrus,
+                                              
lockdep_is_held(&list_lrus_mutex));
        /* do not bother shrinking the array back to the old size, because we
         * cannot handle allocation failures here */
-       __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(nlru->memcg_lrus, old_size, new_size);
+       __memcg_destroy_list_lru_node(memcg_lrus, old_size, new_size);
 }
 
 static int memcg_init_list_lru(struct list_lru *lru, bool memcg_aware)

Reply via email to