[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0812130935220.3611@blonde.anvils>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:49:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH mmotm] memcg fix swap accounting leak (v2)
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> --- mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12.orig/mm/memory.c
> +++ mmotm-2.6.28-Dec12/mm/memory.c
>
> - mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(page, ptr);
> inc_mm_counter(mm, anon_rss);
> pte = mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot);
> if (write_access && reuse_swap_page(page)) {
> pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
> write_access = 0;
> }
> -
> flush_icache_page(vma, page);
> set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, pte);
> page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, address);
> + /* It's better to call commit-charge after rmap is established */
> + mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(page, ptr);
>
> swap_free(entry);
> if (vm_swap_full() || (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) || PageMlocked(page))
That ordering is back to how it was before I adjusted it
for reuse_swap_page()'s delete_from_swap_cache(), isn't it?
So I don't understand how you've fixed the bug I hit (not an
accounting imbalance but an oops or BUG, I forget) with this
ordering, without making some other change elsewhere.
mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin calls swap_cgroup_record with
bogus swp_entry_t 0, which appears to belong to swp_offset 0 of
swp_type 0, but the ctrl->map for type 0 may have been freed
ages ago (we do always start from 0, but maybe we swapped on
type 1 and swapped off type 0 meanwhile). I'm guessing that
by looking at the code, not by retesting it, so I may have the
details wrong; but I didn't reorder your code just for fun.
Perhaps your restored ordering works if you check PageSwapCache
in mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin or check 0 in swap_cgroup_record,
but I don't see that in yesterday's mmotm, nor in this patch.
(And I should admit, I've not even attempted to follow your
accounting justification: I'll leave that to you memcg guys.)
An alternative could be not to clear page->private when deleting
from swap cache, that's only done for tidiness and to force notice
of races like this; but I'd want a much stronger reason to change that.
Or am I making this up? As I say, I've not tested it this time around.
Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists