[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bfc046bc-05fb-37d3-12cf-c302d5429f17@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 23:19:06 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, willy@...radead.org,
shakeelb@...gle.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
swkhack <swkhack@...il.com>,
"Potyra, Stefan" <Stefan.Potyra@...ktrobit.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock
在 2019/11/23 上午12:16, Johannes Weiner 写道:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 10:36:32AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> 在 2019/11/22 上午6:06, Johannes Weiner 写道:
>>> If we could restrict lock_page_lruvec() to working only on PageLRU
>>> pages, we could fix the problem with memory barriers. But this won't
>>> work for split_huge_page(), which is AFAICT the only user that needs
>>> to freeze the lru state of a page that could be isolated elsewhere.
>>>
>>> So AFAICS the only option is to lock out mem_cgroup_move_account()
>>> entirely when the lru_lock is held. Which I guess should be fine.
>>
>> I guess we can try from lock_page_memcg, is that a good start?
>
> Yes.
>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 7e6387ad01f0..f4bbbf72c5b8 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -1224,7 +1224,7 @@ struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(struct page *page, struct pglist_data *pgd
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> - memcg = page->mem_cgroup;
>> + memcg = lock_page_memcg(page);
>> /*
>> * Swapcache readahead pages are added to the LRU - and
>> * possibly migrated - before they are charged.
>
> test_clear_page_writeback() calls this function with that lock already
> held so that would deadlock. Let's keep locking in lock_page_lruvec().
>
> lock_page_lruvec():
>
> memcg = lock_page_memcg(page);
> lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(page_pgdat(page), memcg);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&lruvec->lru_lock, *flags);
> return lruvec;
>
> unlock_lruvec();
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> __unlock_page_memcg(lruvec_memcg(lruvec));
>
> The lock ordering should be fine as well. But it might be a good idea
> to stick a might_lock(&memcg->move_lock) in lock_page_memcg() before
> that atomic_read() and test with lockdep enabled.
Hi Johannes,
Thanks a lot for the suggestion. I will look into this and try.
>
>
> But that leaves me with one more worry: compaction. We locked out
> charge moving now, so between that and knowing that the page is alive,
> we have page->mem_cgroup stable. But compaction doesn't know whether
> the page is alive - it comes from a pfn and finds out using PageLRU.
>
> In the current code, pgdat->lru_lock remains the same before and after
> the page is charged to a cgroup, so once compaction has that locked
> and it observes PageLRU, it can go ahead and isolate the page.
>
> But lruvec->lru_lock changes during charging, and then compaction may
> hold the wrong lock during isolation:
>
> compaction: generic_file_buffered_read:
>
> page_cache_alloc()
>
> !PageBuddy()
>
> lock_page_lruvec(page)
> lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec()
> spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock)
> if lruvec != mem_cgroup_page_lruvec()
> goto again
>
> add_to_page_cache_lru()
> mem_cgroup_commit_charge()
> page->mem_cgroup = foo
> lru_cache_add()
> __pagevec_lru_add()
> SetPageLRU()
>
> if PageLRU(page):
> __isolate_lru_page()
>
> I don't see what prevents the lruvec from changing under compaction,
> neither in your patches nor in Hugh's. Maybe I'm missing something?
Yes, it's a problem.
Guess we could move the lruvec recheck after PageLRU() test in compaction. Then it could be safe, and add a bit more burden on compaction should be fine. at last we have no disturb to file read.
Thanks
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists