[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190924131651.GR23050@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:16:51 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memcg: Only record foreign writebacks with dirty
pages when memcg is not disabled
On Tue 24-09-19 21:04:58, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/24/19 at 02:27pm, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 24-09-19 19:11:51, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index f3c15bb07cce..84e3fdb1ccb4 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -4317,6 +4317,9 @@ void mem_cgroup_track_foreign_dirty_slowpath(struct page *page,
> > >
> > > trace_track_foreign_dirty(page, wb);
> > >
> > > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > > + return;
> > > +
> >
> > This doesn't seem correct. We shouldn't even enter the slowpath with
> > memcg disabled AFAIC. The check should be done at mem_cgroup_track_foreign_dirty
> > level.
>
> You mean the way in v1 patch, right? It's also fine to me.
>
> I am worried about the case that memcg is enabled, the checking by
> calling mem_cgroup_disabled() will lower efficiency.
This is hidden by a static branch so I wouldn't really be worried about
the overhead.
> And it entering
> into mem_cgroup_track_foreign_dirty_slowpath() should be a rare event.
But &page->mem_cgroup->css != wb->memcg_css doesn't make any sense when
memcg is disabled, right?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists