[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2103021547330.9320@eggly.anvils>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 15:49:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Zhou Guanghui <zhouguanghui1@...wei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com,
dingtianhong@...wei.com, chenweilong@...wei.com,
rui.xiang@...wei.com, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: set memcg when split pages
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 12:24:41PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [Cc Johannes for awareness and fixup Nick's email]
> > >
> > > On Tue 02-03-21 01:34:51, Zhou Guanghui wrote:
> > > > When split page, the memory cgroup info recorded in first page is
> > > > not copied to tail pages. In this case, when the tail pages are
> > > > freed, the uncharge operation is not performed. As a result, the
> > > > usage of this memcg keeps increasing, and the OOM may occur.
> > > >
> > > > So, the copying of first page's memory cgroup info to tail pages
> > > > is needed when split page.
> > >
> > > I was not aware that alloc_pages_exact is used for accounted allocations
> > > but git grep told me otherwise so this is not a theoretical one. Both
> > > users (arm64 and s390 kvm) are quite recent AFAICS. split_page is also
> > > used in dma allocator but I got lost in indirection so I have no idea
> > > whether there are any users there.
> >
> > Yes, it's a bit worrying that such a low-level thing as split_page()
> > can now get caught up in memcg accounting, but I suppose that's okay.
> >
> > I feel rather strongly that whichever way it is done, THP splitting
> > and split_page() should use the same interface to memcg.
> >
> > And a look at mem_cgroup_split_huge_fixup() suggests that nowadays
> > there need to be css_get()s too - or better, a css_get_many().
> >
> > Its #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE should be removed, rename
> > it mem_cgroup_split_page_fixup(), and take order from caller.
>
> +1
>
> There is already a split_page_owner() in both these places as well
> which does a similar thing. Mabye we can match that by calling it
> split_page_memcg() and having it take a nr of pages?
Agreed on both counts :) "fixup" was not an inspiring name.
>
> > Though I've never much liked that separate pass: would it be
> > better page by page, like this copy_page_memcg() does? Though
> > mem_cgroup_disabled() and css_getting make that less appealing.
>
> Agreed on both counts. mem_cgroup_disabled() is a jump label and would
> be okay, IMO, but the refcounting - though it is (usually) per-cpu -
> adds at least two branches and rcu read locking.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists