[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3445ebcd-bc69-ec6e-8995-c95753b5c4a7@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:34:07 -0800
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates
On 2/9/21 2:22 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:29:47PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>> @@ -6849,7 +6850,9 @@ static void uncharge_page(struct page *page, struct uncharge_gather *ug)
>> * exclusive access to the page.
>> */
>>
>> - if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page)) {
>> + if (ug->memcg != page_memcg(page) ||
>> + /* uncharge batch update soft limit tree on a node basis */
>> + (ug->dummy_page && ug->nid != page_to_nid(page))) {
>
> The fix makes sense to me.
>
> However, unconditionally breaking up the batch by node can
> unnecessarily regress workloads in cgroups that do not have a soft
> limit configured, and cgroup2 which doesn't have soft limits at
> all. Consider an interleaving allocation policy for example.
>
> Can you please further gate on memcg->soft_limit != PAGE_COUNTER_MAX,
> or at least on !cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)?
>
Sure. Will fix this.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists