On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:17 PM Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:23:45AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:30 PM Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently the page accounting code is duplicated in SLAB and SLUB
> > > internals. Let's move it into new (un)charge_slab_page helpers
> > > in the slab_common.c file. These helpers will be responsible
> > > for statistics (global and memcg-aware) and memcg charging.
> > > So they are replacing direct memcg_(un)charge_slab() calls.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/slab.c | 19 +++----------------
> > > mm/slab.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > mm/slub.c | 14 ++------------
> > > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> > > index 14466a73d057..53e6b2687102 100644
> > > --- a/mm/slab.c
> > > +++ b/mm/slab.c
> > > @@ -1389,7 +1389,6 @@ static struct page *kmem_getpages(struct kmem_cache
> > > *cachep, gfp_t flags,
> > > int
> > > nodeid)
> > > {
> > > struct page *page;
> > > - int nr_pages;
> > >
> > > flags |= cachep->allocflags;
> > >
> > > @@ -1399,17 +1398,11 @@ static struct page *kmem_getpages(struct
> > > kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags,
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (memcg_charge_slab(page, flags, cachep->gfporder, cachep)) {
> > > + if (charge_slab_page(page, flags, cachep->gfporder, cachep)) {
> > > __free_pages(page, cachep->gfporder);
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - nr_pages = (1 << cachep->gfporder);
> > > - if (cachep->flags & SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT)
> > > - mod_lruvec_page_state(page, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE,
> > > nr_pages);
> > > - else
> > > - mod_lruvec_page_state(page, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE,
> > > nr_pages);
> > > -
> > > __SetPageSlab(page);
> > > /* Record if ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS was set when allocating the slab
> > > */
> > > if (sk_memalloc_socks() && page_is_pfmemalloc(page))
> > > @@ -1424,12 +1417,6 @@ static struct page *kmem_getpages(struct
> > > kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags,
> > > static void kmem_freepages(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct page *page)
> > > {
> > > int order = cachep->gfporder;
> > > - unsigned long nr_freed = (1 << order);
> > > -
> > > - if (cachep->flags & SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT)
> > > - mod_lruvec_page_state(page, NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE,
> > > -nr_freed);
> > > - else
> > > - mod_lruvec_page_state(page, NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE,
> > > -nr_freed);
> > >
> > > BUG_ON(!PageSlab(page));
> > > __ClearPageSlabPfmemalloc(page);
> > > @@ -1438,8 +1425,8 @@ static void kmem_freepages(struct kmem_cache
> > > *cachep, struct page *page)
> > > page->mapping = NULL;
> > >
> > > if (current->reclaim_state)
> > > - current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += nr_freed;
> > > - memcg_uncharge_slab(page, order, cachep);
> > > + current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += 1 << order;
> > > + uncharge_slab_page(page, order, cachep);
> > > __free_pages(page, order);
> > > }
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> > > index 4a261c97c138..0f5c5444acf1 100644
> > > --- a/mm/slab.h
> > > +++ b/mm/slab.h
> > > @@ -205,6 +205,12 @@ ssize_t slabinfo_write(struct file *file, const char
> > > __user *buffer,
> > > void __kmem_cache_free_bulk(struct kmem_cache *, size_t, void **);
> > > int __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(struct kmem_cache *, gfp_t, size_t, void **);
> > >
> > > +static inline int cache_vmstat_idx(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > > +{
> > > + return (s->flags & SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT) ?
> > > + NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE : NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> > >
> > > /* List of all root caches. */
> > > @@ -352,6 +358,22 @@ static inline void memcg_link_cache(struct
> > > kmem_cache *s,
> > >
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
> > >
> > > +static __always_inline int charge_slab_page(struct page *page,
> > > + gfp_t gfp, int order,
> > > + struct kmem_cache *s)
> > > +{
> > > + memcg_charge_slab(page, gfp, order, s);
> >
> > This does not seem right. Why the return of memcg_charge_slab is ignored?
>
> Hi Shakeel!
>
> Right, it's a bug. It's actually fixed later in the patchset
> (in "mm: rework non-root kmem_cache lifecycle management"),
> so the final result looks correct to me. Anyway, I'll fix it.
>
> How does everything else look to you?
>
> Thank you!
I caught this during quick glance. Another high level issue I found is
breakage of /proc/kpagecgroup for the slab pages which is easy to fix.
At the moment I am kind of stuck on some other stuff but will get back
to this in a week or so.
Shakeel
