[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11ba0af7-c2b2-83f9-ac55-7793cedb8028@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:42:05 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
vdavydov.dev@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexander.duyck@...il.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list
On 17.01.2020 12:32, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
>>>> I think that's a good point, especially considering that the current code
>>>> appears to unconditionally place any compound page on the deferred split
>>>> queue of the destination memcg. The correct list that it should appear
>>>> on, I believe, depends on whether the pmd has been split for the process
>>>> being moved: note the MC_TARGET_PAGE caveat in
>>>> mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range() that does not move the charge for
>>>> compound pages with split pmds. So when mem_cgroup_move_account() is
>>>> called with compound == true, we're moving the charge of the entire
>>>> compound page: why would it appear on that memcg's deferred split queue?
>>>
>>> I believe Kirill asked how do we know that the page should be actually
>>> added to the deferred list just from the list_empty check. In other
>>> words what if the page hasn't been split at all?
>>
>> Yes, I'm talking about this. Function mem_cgroup_move_account() adds every
>> huge page to the deferred list, while we need to do that only for pages,
>> which are queued for splitting...
>>
>
> Yup, and that appears broken before Wei's patch. Since we only migrate
> charges of entire compound pages (we have a mapping pmd, the underlying
> page cannot be split), it should not appear on the deferred split queue
> for any memcg, right?
Hm. Can't a huge page be mapped in two tasks:
1)the first task unmapped a part of page and initiated splitting,
2)the second task still refers the whole page,
then we move account for the second task?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists