Message-ID: <730c595b-f4bf-b16a-562e-de25b9b7eb97@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:06:48 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        tj@...nel.org, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
        daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        willy@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, lkp@...el.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, richard.weiyang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/16] per memcg lru lock



在 2020/6/10 上午11:22, Hugh Dickins 写道:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, Alex Shi wrote:
>> 在 2020/6/8 下午12:15, Hugh Dickins 写道:
>>>>  24 files changed, 487 insertions(+), 312 deletions(-)
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> I didn't get to try v10 at all, waited until Johannes's preparatory
>>> memcg swap cleanup was in mmotm; but I have spent a while thrashing
>>> this v11, and can happily report that it is much better than v9 etc:
>>> I believe this memcg lru_lock work will soon be ready for v5.9.
>>>
>>> I've not yet found any flaw at the swapping end, but fixes are needed
>>> for isolate_migratepages_block() and mem_cgroup_move_account(): I've
>>> got a series of 4 fix patches to send you (I guess two to fold into
>>> existing patches of yours, and two to keep as separate from me).
>>>
>>> I haven't yet written the patch descriptions, will return to that
>>> tomorrow.  I expect you will be preparing a v12 rebased on v5.8-rc1
>>> or v5.8-rc2, and will be able to include these fixes in that.
>>
>> I am very glad to get your help on this feature! 
>>
>> and looking forward for your fixes tomorrow. :)
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Alex
> 
> Sorry, Alex, the news is not so good today.
> 
> You'll have noticed I sent nothing yesterday. That's because I got
> stuck on my second patch: could not quite convince myself that it
> was safe.

Hi Hugh,

Thanks a lot for your help and effort! I very appreciate for this.

> 
> I keep hinting at these patches, and I can't complete their writeups
> until I'm convinced; but to give you a better idea of what they do:
> 
> 1. Fixes isolate_fail and isolate_abort in isolate_migratepages_block().

I guess I know this after mm-compaction-avoid-vm_bug_onpageslab-in-page_mapcount.patch
was removed.

> 2. Fixes unsafe use of trylock_page() in __isolate_lru_page_prepare().
> 3. Reverts 07/16 inversion of lock ordering in split_huge_page_to_list().
> 4. Adds lruvec lock protection in mem_cgroup_move_account().

Sorry for can't follow you for above issues. Anyway, I will send out new patchset
with the first issue fixed. and then let's discussion base on it.

> 
> In the second, I was using rcu_read_lock() instead of trylock_page()
> (like in my own patchset), but could not quite be sure of the case when
> PageSwapCache gets set at the wrong moment. Gave up for the night, and
> in the morning abandoned that, instead just shifting the call to
> __isolate_lru_page_prepare() after the get_page_unless_zero(),
> where that trylock_page() becomes safe (no danger of stomping on page
> flags while page is being freed or newly allocated to another owner).

Sorry, I don't know the problem of trylock_page here? Could you like to
describe it as a race?

> 
> I thought that a very safe change, but best to do some test runs with
> it in before finalizing. And was then unpleasantly surprised to hit a
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(lruvec_memcg(lruvec) != page->mem_cgroup) from
> lock_page_lruvec_irqsave < relock_page_lruvec < pagevec_lru_move_fn <
> pagevec_move_tail < lru_add_drain_cpu after 6 hours on one machine.
> Then similar but < rotate_reclaimable_page after 8 hours on another.
> 
> Only seen once before: that's what drove me to add patch 4 (with 3 to
> revert the locking before it): somehow, when adding the lruvec locking
> there, I just took it for granted that your patchset would have the
> appropriate locking (or TestClearPageLRU magic) at the other end.
> 
> But apparently not. And I'm beginning to think that TestClearPageLRU
> was just to distract the audience from the lack of proper locking.
> 
> I have certainly not concluded that yet, but I'm having to think about
> an area of the code which I'd imagined you had under control (and I'm
> puzzled why my testing has found it so very hard to hit). If we're
> lucky, I'll find that pagevec_move_tail is a special case, and
> nothing much else needs changing; but I doubt that will be so.
> 
> There's one other unexplained and unfixed bug I've seen several times
> while exercising mem_cgroup_move_account(): refcount_warn_saturate()
> from where __mem_cgroup_clear_mc() calls mem_cgroup_id_get_many().
> I'll be glad if that goes away when the lruvec locking is fixed,
> but don't understand the connection. And it's quite possible that
> this refcounting bug has nothing to do with your changes: I have
> not succeeded in reproducing it on 5.7 nor on 5.7-rc7-mm1,
> but I didn't really try long enough to be sure.
> 
> (I should also warn, that I'm surprised by the amount of change
> 11/16 makes to mm/mlock.c: I've not been exercising mlock at all.)

yes, that is a bit complex. I have tried the mlock cases in selftest with
your swap&build case. They are all fine with 300 times run.

> 
> Taking a break for the evening,
> Hugh
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists