[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e0918c92-90cd-e3ed-f4e6-92d02062c252@google.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:36:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove lock_page_memcg() from rmap
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>
> 2. For 6.2 (or 6.3), remove the non-present pte migration with some
> additional text in the warning and do the rmap cleanup.
I just had an idea for softening the impact of that change: a moment's
more thought may prove it's a terrible idea, but right now I like it.
What if we keep the non-present pte migration throughout the deprecation
period, but with a change to the where the folio_trylock() is done, and
a refusal to move the charge on the page of a non-present pte, if that
page/folio is currently mapped anywhere else - the folio lock preventing
it from then becoming mapped while in mem_cgroup_move_account().
There's an argument that that's a better implementation anyway: that
we should not interfere with others' pages; but perhaps it would turn
out to be unimplementable, or would make for less predictable behaviour.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists