Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm: introduce page memcg flags

[Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:01:22PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > The lowest bit in page->memcg_data is used to distinguish between
> > struct memory_cgroup pointer and a pointer to a objcgs array.
> > All checks and modifications of this bit are open-coded.
> > 
> > Let's formalize it using page memcg flags, defined in page_memcg_flags
> > enum and replace all open-coded accesses with test_bit()/__set_bit().
> > 
> > Few additional flags might be added later. Flags are intended to be
> > mutually exclusive.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/memcontrol.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > index ab3ea3e90583..9a49f1e1c0c7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > @@ -343,6 +343,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> >  
> >  extern struct mem_cgroup *root_mem_cgroup;
> >  
> > +enum page_memcg_flags {
> > +	/* page->memcg_data is a pointer to an objcgs vector */
> > +	PG_MEMCG_OBJ_CGROUPS,
> 
> How about enum memcg_data_flags and PGMEMCG_OBJCG?

Honestly I prefer the original names. I'm ok with enum memcg_data_flags,
if you prefer it. PGMEMCG_OBJCG looks bulky with too many letters
without a separator, also we use object cgroups (plural) everywhere,
like OBJCGS vs OBJCG. PG_MEMCG_OBJCGS works for me.

> 
> > @@ -371,13 +376,7 @@ static inline struct mem_cgroup *page_mem_cgroup_check(struct page *page)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long memcg_data = page->memcg_data;
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * The lowest bit set means that memcg isn't a valid
> > -	 * memcg pointer, but a obj_cgroups pointer.
> > -	 * In this case the page is shared and doesn't belong
> > -	 * to any specific memory cgroup.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (memcg_data & 0x1UL)
> > +	if (test_bit(PG_MEMCG_OBJ_CGROUPS, &memcg_data))
> >  		return NULL;
> >  
> >  	return (struct mem_cgroup *)memcg_data;
> > @@ -422,7 +421,13 @@ static inline void clear_page_mem_cgroup(struct page *page)
> >   */
> >  static inline struct obj_cgroup **page_obj_cgroups(struct page *page)
> >  {
> > -	return (struct obj_cgroup **)(page->memcg_data & ~0x1UL);
> > +	unsigned long memcg_data = page->memcg_data;
> > +
> > +	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(memcg_data && !test_bit(PG_MEMCG_OBJ_CGROUPS,
> > +					       &memcg_data), page);
> > +	__clear_bit(PG_MEMCG_OBJ_CGROUPS, &memcg_data);
> 
> The flag names make sense to me, but this shouldn't be using test_bit,
> __clear_bit, __set_bit etc. on local variables. It suggests that it's
> modifying some shared/global state, when it's just masking out a bit
> during a read. We usually just open-code the bitwise ops for that.

It will be way more bulky otherwise, all those memcg_data & (1UL << PG_MEMCG_OBJ_CGROUPS) etc.
I don't see why these bitops helpers can't be used on local variables.
Is the preference to not use them this way documented anywhere?

Thanks!