[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160129164353.GA8845@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:43:53 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: memcontrol: generalize locking for the
page->mem_cgroup binding
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:30:45PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:00:02PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > @@ -683,17 +683,17 @@ int __set_page_dirty_buffers(struct page *page)
> > } while (bh != head);
> > }
> > /*
> > - * Use mem_group_begin_page_stat() to keep PageDirty synchronized with
> > - * per-memcg dirty page counters.
> > + * Lock out page->mem_cgroup migration to keep PageDirty
> > + * synchronized with per-memcg dirty page counters.
> > */
> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_begin_page_stat(page);
> > + memcg = lock_page_memcg(page);
> > newly_dirty = !TestSetPageDirty(page);
> > spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
> >
> > if (newly_dirty)
> > __set_page_dirty(page, mapping, memcg, 1);
>
> Do we really want to pass memcg to __set_page_dirty and then to
> account_page_dirtied, increasing stack/regs usage even in case memory
> cgroup is disabled? May be, it'd be better to make
> mem_cgroup_update_page_stat take a page instead of a memcg?
I'll look into that. It will need changing migration to leave the
page->mem_cgroup binding of live pages alone, but that's something
worth doing anyway. It's beyond the scope of these patches, though.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists