[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2909ce59-86ba-ea0b-479f-756020fb32af@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:13:19 -0700
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com, hughd@...gle.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 2/4] mm: move mem_cgroup_uncharge out of
__page_cache_release()
On 6/13/19 4:39 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 05:56:47AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> The later patch would make THP deferred split shrinker memcg aware, but
>> it needs page->mem_cgroup information in THP destructor, which is called
>> after mem_cgroup_uncharge() now.
>>
>> So, move mem_cgroup_uncharge() from __page_cache_release() to compound
>> page destructor, which is called by both THP and other compound pages
>> except HugeTLB. And call it in __put_single_page() for single order
>> page.
>
> If I read the patch correctly, it will change behaviour for pages with
> NULL_COMPOUND_DTOR. Have you considered it? Are you sure it will not break
> anything?
So far a quick search shows NULL_COMPOUND_DTOR is not used by any type
of compound page. The HugeTLB code sets destructor to NULL_COMPOUND_DTOR
when freeing hugetlb pages via hugetlb specific destructor.
The prep_new_page() would call prep_compound_page() if __GFP_COMP is
used, which sets dtor to COMPOUND_PAGE_DTOR by default. Just hugetlb
and THP set their specific dtors.
And, it looks __put_compound_page() doesn't check if dtor is NULL or not
at all.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists