[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YfgV2iiaVlR0hozD@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 09:01:14 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, memcg: Don't put offlined memcg into local stock
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:55:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/1/21 19:51, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > When freeing a page associated with an offlined memcg, refill_stock()
> > > will put it into local stock delaying its demise until another memcg
> > > comes in to take its place in the stock. To avoid that, we now check
> > > for offlined memcg and go directly in this case to the slowpath for
> > > the uncharge via the repurposed cancel_charge() function.
> > Hi Waiman!
> >
> > I'm afraid it can make a cleanup of a dying cgroup slower: for every
> > released page we'll potentially traverse the whole cgroup tree and
> > decrease atomic page counters.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the benefits we get from this change which
> > do justify the slowdown on the cleanup path.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> I was notified of a lockdep splat that this patch may help to prevent.
Would you mind to test this patch:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/cgroups/msg31244.html ?
It should address this dependency.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists