[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120710171628.GB29114@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:16:29 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 03/11] mm: shmem: do not try to uncharge known swapcache
pages
On Mon 09-07-12 13:37:39, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I am missing something but who does the uncharge from:
> > shmem_unuse
> > mem_cgroup_cache_charge
> > shmem_unuse_inode
> > shmem_add_to_page_cache
>
> There isn't any special uncharge for shmem_unuse(): once the swapcache
> page is matched up with its memcg, it will get uncharged by one of the
> usual routes to swapcache_free() when the page is freed: maybe in the
> call from __remove_mapping(), maybe when free_page_and_swap_cache()
> ends up calling it.
>
> Perhaps you're worrying about error (or unfound) paths in shmem_unuse()?
Yes that was exactly my concern.
> By the time we make the charge, we know for sure that it's a shmem page,
> and make the charge appropriately; in racy cases it might get uncharged
> again in the delete_from_swap_cache(). Can the unfound case occur these
> days?
I cannot find a change that would prevent from that.
> I'd have to think more deeply to answer that, but the charge will
> not go missing.
>
> Hugh
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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