mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()

Since commit 2c80cd57c7 ("mm/list_lru.c: fix list_lru_count_node() to
be race free"), we are tracking the total number of lru entries in a
list_lru_node in its nr_items field.

In the case of memcg_reparent_list_lru_node(), there is nothing to be
done if nr_items is 0.  We don't even need to take the nlru->lock as no
new lru entry could be added by a racing list_lru_add() to the draining
src_idx memcg at this point.

On systems that serve a lot of containers, it is possible that there can
be thousands of list_lru's present due to the fact that each container
may mount its own container specific filesystems.  As a typical
container uses only a few cpus, it is likely that only the list_lru_node
that contains those cpus will be utilized while the rests may be empty.
In other words, there can be a lot of list_lru_node with 0 nr_items.

By skipping a lock/unlock operation and loading a cacheline from
memcg_lrus, a sizeable number of cpu cycles can be saved.  That can be
substantial if we are talking about thousands of list_lru_node's with 0
nr_items.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>
Cc: Muchun Song <[email protected]>
Cc: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

mm/list_lru.c

@@ -394,6 +394,12 @@ static void memcg_reparent_list_lru_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
 	int dst_idx = dst_memcg->kmemcg_id;
 	struct list_lru_one *src, *dst;
 
+	/*
+	 * If there is no lru entry in this nlru, we can skip it immediately.
+	 */
+	if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items))
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
 	 * we have to use IRQ-safe primitives here to avoid deadlock.