[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMZfGtWS581YW4Y8oNU=E_zPnpK=mMdYVSG1F3U3fJNAzBzc+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:06:03 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-mm v3] mm/list_lru: Optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:40 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Since commit 2c80cd57c743 ("mm/list_lru.c: fix list_lru_count_node()
> to be race free"), we are tracking the total number of lru
> entries in a list_lru_node in its nr_items field. In the case of
> memcg_reparent_list_lru_node(), there is nothing to be done if nr_items
> is 0. We don't even need to take the nlru->lock as no new lru entry
> could be added by a racing list_lru_add() to the draining src_idx memcg
> at this point.
Hi Waiman,
Sorry for the late reply. Quick question: what if there is an inflight
list_lru_add()? How about the following race?
CPU0: CPU1:
list_lru_add()
spin_lock(&nlru->lock)
l = list_lru_from_kmem(memcg)
memcg_reparent_objcgs(memcg)
memcg_reparent_list_lrus(memcg)
memcg_reparent_list_lru()
memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()
if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items))
// Miss reparenting
return
// Assume 0->1
l->nr_items++
// Assume 0->1
nlru->nr_items++
IIUC, we use nlru->lock to serialise this scenario.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists