kernel/linux.git/include/linux/list_lru.h, branch v6.6.131

mm: list_lru: rename list_lru_per_memcg to list_lru_memcg

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

The name of list_lru_memcg was occupied before and became free since last commit. Rename list_lru_per_memcg to list_lru_memcg since the name is brief. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-16-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: list_lru: replace linear array with xarray

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

If we run 10k containers in the system, the size of the list_lru_memcg->lrus can be ~96KB per list_lru. When we decrease the number containers, the size of the array will not be shrinked. It is not scalable. The xarray is a good choice for this case. We can save a lot of memory when there are tens of thousands continers in the system. If we use xarray, we also can remove the logic code of resizing array, which can simplify the code. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove unused local] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-13-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: list_lru: rename memcg_drain_all_list_lrus to memcg_reparent_list_lrus

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

The purpose of the memcg_drain_all_list_lrus() is list_lrus reparenting. It is very similar to memcg_reparent_objcgs(). Rename it to memcg_reparent_list_lrus() so that the name can more consistent with memcg_reparent_objcgs(). Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-12-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: list_lru: allocate list_lru_one only when needed

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

In our server, we found a suspected memory leak problem. The kmalloc-32 consumes more than 6GB of memory. Other kmem_caches consume less than 2GB memory. After our in-depth analysis, the memory consumption of kmalloc-32 slab cache is the cause of list_lru_one allocation. crash> p memcg_nr_cache_ids memcg_nr_cache_ids = $2 = 24574 memcg_nr_cache_ids is very large and memory consumption of each list_lru can be calculated with the following formula. num_numa_node * memcg_nr_cache_ids * 32 (kmalloc-32) There are 4 numa nodes in our system, so each list_lru consumes ~3MB. crash> list super_blocks | wc -l 952 Every mount will register 2 list lrus, one is for inode, another is for dentry. There are 952 super_blocks. So the total memory is 952 * 2 * 3 MB (~5.6GB). But the number of memory cgroup is less than 500. So I guess more than 12286 containers have been deployed on this machine (I do not know why there are so many containers, it may be a user's bug or the user really want to do that). And memcg_nr_cache_ids has not been reduced to a suitable value. This can waste a lot of memory. Now the infrastructure for dynamic list_lru_one allocation is ready, so remove statically allocated memory code to save memory. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-11-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: introduce kmem_cache_alloc_lru

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

We currently allocate scope for every memcg to be able to tracked on every superblock instantiated in the system, regardless of whether that superblock is even accessible to that memcg. These huge memcg counts come from container hosts where memcgs are confined to just a small subset of the total number of superblocks that instantiated at any given point in time. For these systems with huge container counts, list_lru does not need the capability of tracking every memcg on every superblock. What it comes down to is that adding the memcg to the list_lru at the first insert. So introduce kmem_cache_alloc_lru to allocate objects and its list_lru. In the later patch, we will convert all inode and dentry allocation from kmem_cache_alloc to kmem_cache_alloc_lru. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-3-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Yang Shi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: list_lru: transpose the array of per-node per-memcg lru lists

2022-03-22T22:57:03+00:00

Patch series "Optimize list lru memory consumption", v6. In our server, we found a suspected memory leak problem. The kmalloc-32 consumes more than 6GB of memory. Other kmem_caches consume less than 2GB memory. After our in-depth analysis, the memory consumption of kmalloc-32 slab cache is the cause of list_lru_one allocation. crash> p memcg_nr_cache_ids memcg_nr_cache_ids = $2 = 24574 memcg_nr_cache_ids is very large and memory consumption of each list_lru can be calculated with the following formula. num_numa_node * memcg_nr_cache_ids * 32 (kmalloc-32) There are 4 numa nodes in our system, so each list_lru consumes ~3MB. crash> list super_blocks | wc -l 952 Every mount will register 2 list lrus, one is for inode, another is for dentry. There are 952 super_blocks. So the total memory is 952 * 2 * 3 MB (~5.6GB). But now the number of memory cgroups is less than 500. So I guess more than 12286 memory cgroups have been created on this machine (I do not know why there are so many cgroups, it may be a user's bug or the user really want to do that). Because memcg_nr_cache_ids has not been reduced to a suitable value. It leads to waste a lot of memory. If we want to reduce memcg_nr_cache_ids, we have to *reboot* the server. This is not what we want. In order to reduce memcg_nr_cache_ids, I had posted a patchset [1] to do this. But this did not fundamentally solve the problem. We currently allocate scope for every memcg to be able to tracked on every superblock instantiated in the system, regardless of whether that superblock is even accessible to that memcg. These huge memcg counts come from container hosts where memcgs are confined to just a small subset of the total number of superblocks that instantiated at any given point in time. For these systems with huge container counts, list_lru does not need the capability of tracking every memcg on every superblock. What it comes down to is that the list_lru is only needed for a given memcg if that memcg is instatiating and freeing objects on a given list_lru. As Dave said, "Which makes me think we should be moving more towards 'add the memcg to the list_lru at the first insert' model rather than 'instantiate all at memcg init time just in case'." This patchset aims to optimize the list lru memory consumption from different aspects. I had done a easy test to show the optimization. I create 10k memory cgroups and mount 10k filesystems in the systems. We use free command to show how many memory does the systems comsumes after this operation (There are 2 numa nodes in the system). +-----------------------+------------------------+ | condition | memory consumption | +-----------------------+------------------------+ | without this patchset | 24464 MB | +-----------------------+------------------------+ | after patch 1 | 21957 MB | <--------+ +-----------------------+------------------------+ | | after patch 10 | 6895 MB | | +-----------------------+------------------------+ | | after patch 12 | 4367 MB | | +-----------------------+------------------------+ | | The more the number of nodes, the more obvious the effect---+ BTW, there was a recent discussion [2] on the same issue. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210428094949.43579-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210405054848.GA1077931@in.ibm.com/ This series not only optimizes the memory usage of list_lru but also simplifies the code. This patch (of 16): The current scheme of maintaining per-node per-memcg lru lists looks like: struct list_lru { struct list_lru_node *node; (for each node) struct list_lru_memcg *memcg_lrus; struct list_lru_one *lru[]; (for each memcg) } By effectively transposing the two-dimension array of list_lru_one's structures (per-node per-memcg => per-memcg per-node) it's possible to save some memory and simplify alloc/dealloc paths. The new scheme looks like: struct list_lru { struct list_lru_memcg *mlrus; struct list_lru_per_memcg *mlru[]; (for each memcg) struct list_lru_one node[0]; (for each node) } Memory savings are coming from not only 'struct rcu_head' but also some pointer arrays used to store the pointer to 'struct list_lru_one'. The array is per node and its size is 8 (a pointer) * num_memcgs. So the total size of the arrays is 8 * num_nodes * memcg_nr_cache_ids. After this patch, the size becomes 8 * memcg_nr_cache_ids. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220228122126.37293-2-songmuchun@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Muchun Song Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Shakeel Butt Cc: Yang Shi Cc: Alex Shi Cc: Wei Yang Cc: Dave Chinner Cc: Trond Myklebust Cc: Anna Schumaker Cc: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Chao Yu Cc: Kari Argillander Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Qi Zheng Cc: Xiongchun Duan Cc: Fam Zheng Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Theodore Ts'o Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: fix spelling mistakes in header files

2021-07-08T18:48:21+00:00

Fix some spelling mistakes in comments: successfull ==> successful potentialy ==> potentially alloced ==> allocated indicies ==> indices wont ==> won't resposible ==> responsible dirtyness ==> dirtiness droppped ==> dropped alread ==> already occured ==> occurred interupts ==> interrupts extention ==> extension slighly ==> slightly Dont't ==> Don't Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210531034849.9549-2-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei Cc: Jerome Glisse Cc: Mike Kravetz Cc: Dennis Zhou Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Christoph Lameter Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

list_lru.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member

2020-04-18T20:44:55+00:00

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva

memcg: make it work on sparse non-0-node systems

2019-06-01T22:51:31+00:00

We have a single node system with node 0 disabled: Scanning NUMA topology in Northbridge 24 Number of physical nodes 2 Skipping disabled node 0 Node 1 MemBase 0000000000000000 Limit 00000000fbff0000 NODE_DATA(1) allocated [mem 0xfbfda000-0xfbfeffff] This causes crashes in memcg when system boots: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000008 #PF error: [normal kernel read fault] ... RIP: 0010:list_lru_add+0x94/0x170 ... Call Trace: d_lru_add+0x44/0x50 dput.part.34+0xfc/0x110 __fput+0x108/0x230 task_work_run+0x9f/0xc0 exit_to_usermode_loop+0xf5/0x100 It is reproducible as far as 4.12. I did not try older kernels. You have to have a new enough systemd, e.g. 241 (the reason is unknown -- was not investigated). Cannot be reproduced with systemd 234. The system crashes because the size of lru array is never updated in memcg_update_all_list_lrus and the reads are past the zero-sized array, causing dereferences of random memory. The root cause are list_lru_memcg_aware checks in the list_lru code. The test in list_lru_memcg_aware is broken: it assumes node 0 is always present, but it is not true on some systems as can be seen above. So fix this by avoiding checks on node 0. Remember the memcg-awareness by a bool flag in struct list_lru. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190522091940.3615-1-jslaby@suse.cz Fixes: 60d3fd32a7a9 ("list_lru: introduce per-memcg lists") Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby Acked-by: Michal Hocko Suggested-by: Vladimir Davydov Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Raghavendra K T Cc: Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm/list_lru: introduce list_lru_shrink_walk_irq()

2018-08-17T23:20:32+00:00

Provide list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() and let it behave like list_lru_walk_one() except that it locks the spinlock with spin_lock_irq(). This is used by scan_shadow_nodes() because its lock nests within the i_pages lock which is acquired with IRQ. This change allows to use proper locking promitives instead hand crafted lock_irq_disable() plus spin_lock(). There is no EXPORT_SYMBOL provided because the current user is in-kernel only. Add list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() which acquires the spinlock with the proper locking primitives. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716111921.5365-5-bigeasy@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Reviewed-by: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds