Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: provide accurate stats for userspace reads

[Yosry Ahmed]

<snip>
> > > [...]
> > > > @@ -639,17 +639,24 @@ static inline void memcg_rstat_updated(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int val)
> > > >       }
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -static void do_flush_stats(void)
> > > > +static void do_flush_stats(bool full)
> > > >  {
> > > > +     if (!atomic_read(&stats_flush_ongoing) &&
> > > > +         !atomic_xchg(&stats_flush_ongoing, 1))
> > > > +             goto flush;
> > > > +
> > > >       /*
> > > > -      * We always flush the entire tree, so concurrent flushers can just
> > > > -      * skip. This avoids a thundering herd problem on the rstat global lock
> > > > -      * from memcg flushers (e.g. reclaim, refault, etc).
> > > > +      * We always flush the entire tree, so concurrent flushers can choose to
> > > > +      * skip if accuracy is not critical. Otherwise, wait for the ongoing
> > > > +      * flush to complete. This avoids a thundering herd problem on the rstat
> > > > +      * global lock from memcg flushers (e.g. reclaim, refault, etc).
> > > >        */
> > > > -     if (atomic_read(&stats_flush_ongoing) ||
> > > > -         atomic_xchg(&stats_flush_ongoing, 1))
> > > > -             return;
> > > > -
> > > > +     while (full && atomic_read(&stats_flush_ongoing) == 1) {
> > > > +             if (!cond_resched())
> > > > +                     cpu_relax();
> > >
> > > You are reinveting a mutex with spinning waiter. Why don't you simply
> > > make stats_flush_ongoing a real mutex and make use try_lock for !full
> > > flush and normal lock otherwise?
> >
> > So that was actually a spinlock at one point, when we used to skip if
> > try_lock failed.
>
> AFAICS cgroup_rstat_flush is allowed to sleep so spinlocks are not
> really possible.

Sorry I hit the send button too early, didn't get to this part.

We were able to use a spinlock because we used to disable sleeping
when flushing the stats then, which opened another can of worms :)

>
> > We opted for an atomic because the lock was only used
> > in a try_lock fashion. The problem here is that the atomic is used to
> > ensure that only one thread actually attempts to flush at a time (and
> > others skip/wait), to avoid a thundering herd problem on
> > cgroup_rstat_lock.
> >
> > Here, what I am trying to do is essentially equivalent to "wait until
> > the lock is available but don't grab it". If we make
> > stats_flush_ongoing a mutex, I am afraid the thundering herd problem
> > will be reintroduced for stats_flush_ongoing this time.
>
> You will have potentially many spinners for something that might take
> quite a lot of time (sleep) if there is nothing else to schedule. I do
> not think this is a proper behavior. Really, you shouldn't be busy
> waiting for a sleeper.
>
> > I am not sure if there's a cleaner way of doing this, but I am
> > certainly open for suggestions. I also don't like how the spinning
> > loop looks as of now.
>
> mutex_try_lock for non-critical flushers and mutex_lock of syncing ones.
> We can talk a custom locking scheme if that proves insufficient or
> problematic.

I have no problem with this. I can send a v2 following this scheme,
once we agree on the importance of this patch :)

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs