From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
hch@infradead.org, ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/17] mem/memcg: cache rightmost node
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:50:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170719075036.GA26779@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170719014603.19029-17-dave@stgolabs.net>
[CC Johannes and Vladimir - the whole series is
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170719014603.19029-1-dave@stgolabs.net]
On Tue 18-07-17 18:46:02, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Such that we can optimize __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node().
> The only overhead is the extra footprint for the cached pointer,
> but this should not be an issue for mem_cgroup_tree_per_node.
The soft limit reclaim and the associated tree manipulation is not worth
touching/optimizing IMHO. We strongly discourage anybody configuring
soft limit because of the way how it is implemented and disruptive.
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 3df3c04d73ab..2ef9328ace2e 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ static const char *const mem_cgroup_lru_names[] = {
>
> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node {
> struct rb_root rb_root;
> + struct rb_node *rb_rightmost;
> spinlock_t lock;
> };
>
> @@ -386,6 +387,7 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
> struct rb_node **p = &mctz->rb_root.rb_node;
> struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
> struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz_node;
> + bool rightmost = true;
>
> if (mz->on_tree)
> return;
> @@ -397,8 +399,11 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
> parent = *p;
> mz_node = rb_entry(parent, struct mem_cgroup_per_node,
> tree_node);
> - if (mz->usage_in_excess < mz_node->usage_in_excess)
> + if (mz->usage_in_excess < mz_node->usage_in_excess) {
> p = &(*p)->rb_left;
> + rightmost = false;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * We can't avoid mem cgroups that are over their soft
> * limit by the same amount
> @@ -406,6 +411,10 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
> else if (mz->usage_in_excess >= mz_node->usage_in_excess)
> p = &(*p)->rb_right;
> }
> +
> + if (rightmost)
> + mctz->rb_rightmost = &mz->tree_node;
> +
> rb_link_node(&mz->tree_node, parent, p);
> rb_insert_color(&mz->tree_node, &mctz->rb_root);
> mz->on_tree = true;
> @@ -416,6 +425,10 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz,
> {
> if (!mz->on_tree)
> return;
> +
> + if (&mz->tree_node == mctz->rb_rightmost)
> + mctz->rb_rightmost = rb_next(&mz->tree_node);
> +
> rb_erase(&mz->tree_node, &mctz->rb_root);
> mz->on_tree = false;
> }
> @@ -496,16 +509,15 @@ static void mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> static struct mem_cgroup_per_node *
> __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node(struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *mctz)
> {
> - struct rb_node *rightmost = NULL;
> struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz;
>
> retry:
> mz = NULL;
> - rightmost = rb_last(&mctz->rb_root);
> - if (!rightmost)
> + if (!mctz->rb_rightmost)
> goto done; /* Nothing to reclaim from */
>
> - mz = rb_entry(rightmost, struct mem_cgroup_per_node, tree_node);
> + mz = rb_entry(mctz->rb_rightmost,
> + struct mem_cgroup_per_node, tree_node);
> /*
> * Remove the node now but someone else can add it back,
> * we will to add it back at the end of reclaim to its correct
> @@ -5850,6 +5862,7 @@ static int __init mem_cgroup_init(void)
> node_online(node) ? node : NUMA_NO_NODE);
>
> rtpn->rb_root = RB_ROOT;
> + rtpn->rb_rightmost = NULL;
> spin_lock_init(&rtpn->lock);
> soft_limit_tree.rb_tree_per_node[node] = rtpn;
> }
> --
> 2.12.0
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-19 7:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-19 1:45 [PATCH -next v4 00/17] rbtree: cache leftmost node internally Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 01/17] " Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 02/17] rbtree: optimize root-check during rebalancing loop Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 03/17] rbtree: add some additional comments for rebalancing cases Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 04/17] lib/rbtree_test.c: make input module parameters Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 05/17] lib/rbtree_test.c: add (inorder) traversal test Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 06/17] lib/rbtree_test.c: support rb_root_cached Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 07/17] sched/fair: replace cfs_rq->rb_leftmost Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 08/17] sched/deadline: replace earliest dl and rq leftmost caching Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 09/17] locking/rtmutex: replace top-waiter and pi_waiters " Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 10/17] block/cfq: replace cfq_rb_root " Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 7:46 ` Jan Kara
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 11/17] lib/interval_tree: fast overlap detection Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-22 17:52 ` Doug Ledford
2017-08-01 17:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 12/17] lib/interval-tree: correct comment wrt generic flavor Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:45 ` [PATCH 13/17] procfs: use faster rb_first_cached() Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:46 ` [PATCH 14/17] fs/epoll: " Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:46 ` [PATCH 15/17] fs/ext4: use cached rbtrees Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 7:40 ` Jan Kara
2017-07-19 22:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 1:46 ` [PATCH 16/17] mem/memcg: cache rightmost node Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 7:50 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-07-26 21:09 ` Andrew Morton
2017-07-27 7:06 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-19 1:46 ` [PATCH 17/17] block/cfq: cache rightmost rb_node Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-19 7:59 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170719075036.GA26779@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®