[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <39a72184-c864-4a40-49fd-c27893dd2002@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:29:17 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, hannes@...xchg.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, tj@...nel.org,
khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, willy@...radead.org,
shakeelb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] per lruvec lru_lock for memcg
在 2020/1/14 下午5:14, Alex Shi 写道:
> Anyway, although I didn't reproduced the bug. but I found a bug in my
> debug function:
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(lruvec_memcg(lruvec) != page->mem_cgroup, page);
>
> if !page->mem_cgroup, the bug could be triggered, so, seems it's a bug
> for debug function, not real issue. The 9th patch should be replaced by
> the following new patch.
If !page->mem_cgroup, means the page is on root_mem_cgroup, so lurvec's
memcg is root_mem_cgroup, not NULL. that trigger the issue.
Hi Johannes,
So I have a question about the lock_page_memcg in this scenario, Should
we lock the page to root_mem_cgroup? or there is no needs as no tasks
move to a leaf memcg from root?
Thanks
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists