Re: [PATCH] memcg: rearrage fields of mem_cgroup_per_node

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:34 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 09:35:57PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 8:48 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > >  struct mem_cgroup_per_node {
> > > -       struct lruvec           lruvec;
> > > +       /* Keep the read-only fields at the start */
> > > +       struct mem_cgroup       *memcg;         /* Back pointer, we cannot */
> > > +                                               /* use container_of        */
> > >
> > >         struct lruvec_stats_percpu __percpu     *lruvec_stats_percpu;
> > >         struct lruvec_stats                     *lruvec_stats;
> > > -
> > > -       unsigned long           lru_zone_size[MAX_NR_ZONES][NR_LRU_LISTS];
> > > -
> > > -       struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter  iter;
> > > -
> > >         struct shrinker_info __rcu      *shrinker_info;
> > >
> > > +       /* memcg-v1 only stuff in middle */
> > > +
> > >         struct rb_node          tree_node;      /* RB tree node */
> > >         unsigned long           usage_in_excess;/* Set to the value by which */
> > >                                                 /* the soft limit is exceeded*/
> > >         bool                    on_tree;
> > > -       struct mem_cgroup       *memcg;         /* Back pointer, we cannot */
> > > -                                               /* use container_of        */
> >
> > Do we need CACHELINE_PADDING() here (or maybe make struct lruvec
> > cache-aligned) to make sure the false cacheline sharing doesn't happen
> > again with the fields below, or is the idea that the fields that get
> > read in hot paths (memcg, lruvec_stats_percpu, lruvec_stats) are far
> > at the top, and the memcg v1 elements in the middle act as a buffer?
> >
> > IOW, is sharing between the fields below and memcg v1 fields okay
> > because they are not read in the hot path? If yes, I believe it's
> > worth a comment. It can be easily missed if the memcg v1 soft limit is
> > removed later for example.
> >
>
> For 6.10, I wanted to keep the change simple and yes, the memcg v1 stuff
> as a buffer between the pointers and lruvec/lru_zone_size fields. For

Fair enough, could we update the comment to explicitly mention this?

> 6.11 or later kernels, I am planning to use some asserts to make sure
> these fields don't share a cacheline, so later when we remove the
> v1-only stuff, the asserts will make sure we keep the separate cacheline
> property intact.
>

Makes sense to me.

With the comment update, feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>