[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170426044608.GA32451@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:46:09 +0000
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
CC: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Uncharge poisoned pages
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:45:00PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > > static int delete_from_lru_cache(struct page *p)
> > > > {
> > > > + if (memcg_kmem_enabled())
> > > > + memcg_kmem_uncharge(p, 0);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > The changelog is not quite clear, so we are uncharging a page using
> > > memcg_kmem_uncharge for a page in swap cache/page cache?
> >
> > Hi Balbir,
> >
> > Yes, in the normal page lifecycle, uncharge is done in page free time.
> > But in memory error handling case, in-use pages (i.e. swap cache and page
> > cache) are removed from normal path and they don't pass page freeing code.
> > So I think that this change is to keep the consistent charging for such a case.
>
> I agree we should uncharge, but looking at the API name, it seems to
> be for kmem pages, why are we not using mem_cgroup_uncharge()? Am I missing
> something?
Thank you for pointing out.
Actually I had the same question and this surely looks strange.
But simply calling mem_cgroup_uncharge() here doesn't work because it
assumes that page_refcount(p) == 0, which is not true in hwpoison context.
We need some other clearer way or at least some justifying comment about
why this is ok.
- Naoya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists