Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:28:53 -0800
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
CC:     <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/28] mm: vmstat: use s32 for vm_node_stat_diff in
 struct per_cpu_nodestat
Message-ID: <20200203222853.GD6781@xps.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20200127173453.2089565-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20200127173453.2089565-13-guro@fb.com>
 <20200203175818.GF1697@cmpxchg.org>
 <20200203182506.GA3700@xps.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <20200203203450.GA6380@cmpxchg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200203203450.GA6380@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 754e2d1f-dd06-4da8-b446-08d7a8f8781f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2020 22:29:02.0062
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: djxvj4wV+jJb89TE26hZhSElyD7jy9sh9dqab0MmfxdIsAi7lOUxQuQk3yqyyiYO
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR15MB2568
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572
 definitions=2020-02-03_08:2020-02-02,2020-02-03 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0
 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501
 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015
 suspectscore=5 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-1911200001 definitions=main-2002030162
X-FB-Internal: deliver
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 03:34:50PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:25:06AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 12:58:18PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 09:34:37AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > Currently s8 type is used for per-cpu caching of per-node statistics.
> > > > It works fine because the overfill threshold can't exceed 125.
> > > > 
> > > > But if some counters are in bytes (and the next commit in the series
> > > > will convert slab counters to bytes), it's not gonna work:
> > > > value in bytes can easily exceed s8 without exceeding the threshold
> > > > converted to bytes. So to avoid overfilling per-cpu caches and breaking
> > > > vmstats correctness, let's use s32 instead.
> > > > 
> > > > This doesn't affect per-zone statistics. There are no plans to use
> > > > zone-level byte-sized counters, so no reasons to change anything.
> > > 
> > > Wait, is this still necessary? AFAIU, the node counters will account
> > > full slab pages, including free space, and only the memcg counters
> > > that track actual objects will be in bytes.
> > > 
> > > Can you please elaborate?
> > 
> > It's weird to have a counter with the same name (e.g. NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B)
> > being in different units depending on the accounting scope.
> > So I do convert all slab counters: global, per-lruvec,
> > and per-memcg to bytes.
> 
> Since the node counters tracks allocated slab pages and the memcg
> counter tracks allocated objects, arguably they shouldn't use the same
> name anyway.
> 
> > Alternatively I can fork them, e.g. introduce per-memcg or per-lruvec
> > NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_OBJ
> > NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_OBJ
> 
> Can we alias them and reuse their slots?
> 
> 	/* Reuse the node slab page counters item for charged objects */
> 	MEMCG_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE = NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE,
> 	MEMCG_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE = NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE,

Yeah, lgtm.

Isn't MEMCG_ prefix bad because it makes everybody think that it belongs to
the enum memcg_stat_item?

> 
> > and keep global counters untouched. If going this way, I'd prefer to make
> > them per-memcg, because it will simplify things on charging paths:
> > now we do get task->mem_cgroup->obj_cgroup in the pre_alloc_hook(),
> > and then obj_cgroup->mem_cgroup in the post_alloc_hook() just to
> > bump per-lruvec counters.
> 
> I don't quite follow. Don't you still have to update the global
> counters?

Global counters are updated only if an allocation requires a new slab
page, which isn't the most common path.
In generic case post_hook is required because it's the only place where
we have both page (to get the node) and memcg pointer.

If NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE is tracked only per-memcg (as MEMCG_SOCK),
then post_hook can handle only the rare "allocation failed" case.

I'm not sure here what's better.

> 
> > Btw, I wonder if we really need per-lruvec counters at all (at least
> > being enabled by default). For the significant amount of users who
> > have a single-node machine it doesn't bring anything except performance
> > overhead.
> 
> Yeah, for single-node systems we should be able to redirect everything
> to the memcg counters, without allocating and tracking lruvec copies.

Sounds good. It can lead to significant savings on single-node machines.

> 
> > For those who have multiple nodes (and most likely many many
> > memory cgroups) it provides way too many data except for debugging
> > some weird mm issues.
> > I guess in the absolute majority of cases having global per-node + per-memcg
> > counters will be enough.
> 
> Hm? Reclaim uses the lruvec counters.

Can you, please, provide some examples? It looks like it's mostly based
on per-zone lruvec size counters.

Anyway, it seems to be a little bit off from this patchset, so let's
discuss it separately.