The LKP robot found a 27% will-it-scale/page_fault3 performance
regression regarding commit e27be240("mm: memcg: make sure
memory.events is uptodate when waking pollers").

What the test does is:
 1 mkstemp() a 128M file on a tmpfs;
 2 start $nr_cpu processes, each to loop the following:
   2.1 mmap() this file in shared write mode;
   2.2 write 0 to this file in a PAGE_SIZE step till the end of the file;
   2.3 unmap() this file and repeat this process.
 3 After 5 minutes, check how many loops they managed to complete, the
   higher the better.

The commit itself looks innocent enough as it merely changed some event
counting mechanism and this test didn't trigger those events at all.
Perf shows increased cycles spent on accessing root_mem_cgroup->stat_cpu
in count_memcg_event_mm()(called by handle_mm_fault()) and in
__mod_memcg_state() called by page_add_file_rmap().  So it's likely due
to the changed layout of 'struct mem_cgroup' that either make stat_cpu
falling into a constantly modifying cacheline or some hot fields stop
being in the same cacheline.

I verified this by moving memory_events[] back to where it was:

: --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
: +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
: @@ -205,7 +205,6 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
:  	int		oom_kill_disable;
:
:  	/* memory.events */
: -	atomic_long_t memory_events[MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS];
:  	struct cgroup_file events_file;
:
:  	/* protect arrays of thresholds */
: @@ -238,6 +237,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
:  	struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu __percpu *stat_cpu;
:  	atomic_long_t		stat[MEMCG_NR_STAT];
:  	atomic_long_t		events[NR_VM_EVENT_ITEMS];
: +	atomic_long_t memory_events[MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS];
:
:  	unsigned long		socket_pressure;

And performance restored.

Later investigation found that as long as the following 3 fields
moving_account, move_lock_task and stat_cpu are in the same cacheline,
performance will be good.  To avoid future performance surprise by other
commits changing the layout of 'struct mem_cgroup', this patch makes
sure the 3 fields stay in the same cacheline.

One concern of this approach is, moving_account and move_lock_task could
be modified when a process changes memory cgroup while stat_cpu is a
always read field, it might hurt to place them in the same cacheline.  I
assume it is rare for a process to change memory cgroup so this should
be OK.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180528114019.GF9904@yexl-desktop
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180601071115.GA27302@intel.comSigned-off-by: NAaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Reported-by: Nkernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>