Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100019-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <8aa61329-dc3c-46f2-9db5-6e0770fbedda@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:22:54 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] UNFINISHED mm, fs: use kmem_cache_charge() in
 path_openat()
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
 Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
 David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
 Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>, Alexander Viro
 <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240301-slab-memcg-v1-0-359328a46596@suse.cz>
 <20240301-slab-memcg-v1-4-359328a46596@suse.cz>
 <CAHk-=whgFtbTxCAg2CWQtDj7n6CEyzvdV1wcCj2qpMfpw0=m1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZeIkKrS7HK6ENwbw@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <ZeIkKrS7HK6ENwbw@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/1/24 19:53, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 09:51:18AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> What I *think* I'd want for this case is
>> 
>>  (a) allow the accounting to go over by a bit
>> 
>>  (b) make sure there's a cheap way to ask (before) about "did we go
>> over the limit"
>> 
>> IOW, the accounting never needed to be byte-accurate to begin with,
>> and making it fail (cheaply and early) on the next file allocation is
>> fine.
>> 
>> Just make it really cheap. Can we do that?
>> 
>> For example, maybe don't bother with the whole "bytes and pages"
>> stuff. Just a simple "are we more than one page over?" kind of
>> question. Without the 'stock_lock' mess for sub-page bytes etc
>> 
>> How would that look? Would it result in something that can be done
>> cheaply without locking and atomics and without excessive pointer
>> indirection through many levels of memcg data structures?
> 
> I think it's possible and I'm currently looking into batching charge,
> objcg refcnt management and vmstats using per-task caching. It should
> speed up things for the majority of allocations.
> For allocations from an irq context and targeted allocations
> (where the target memcg != memcg of the current task) we'd probably need to
> keep the old scheme. I hope to post some patches relatively soon.

Do you think this will work on top of this series, i.e. patches 1+2 could be
eventually put to slab/for-next after the merge window, or would it
interfere with your changes?

> I tried to optimize the current implementation but failed to get any
> significant gains. It seems that the overhead is very evenly spread across
> objcg pointer access, charge management, objcg refcnt management and vmstats.
> 
> Thanks!