[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <39f22c1a-705e-4e76-919a-2ca99d1ed7d6@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 21:35:02 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
ziy@...dia.com, harry.yoo@...cle.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, npache@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
dev.jain@....com, baohua@...nel.org, lance.yang@...ux.dev,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm: thp: reparent the split queue during memcg
offline
On 25.09.25 08:11, Qi Zheng wrote:
> Hi David,
Hi :)
[...]
>>> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
>>> @@ -1346,6 +1346,7 @@ struct deferred_split {
>>> spinlock_t split_queue_lock;
>>> struct list_head split_queue;
>>> unsigned long split_queue_len;
>>> + bool is_dying;
>>
>> It's a bit weird to query whether the "struct deferred_split" is dying.
>> Shouldn't this be a memcg property? (and in particular, not exist for
>
> There is indeed a CSS_DYING flag. But we must modify 'is_dying' under
> the protection of the split_queue_lock, otherwise the folio may be added
> back to the deferred_split of child memcg.
Is there no way to reuse the existing mechanisms, and find a way to have
the shrinker / queue locking sync against that?
There is also the offline_css() function where we clear CSS_ONLINE. But
it happens after calling ss->css_offline(css);
Being able to query "is the memcg going offline" and having a way to
sync against that would be probably cleanest.
I'll let all the memcg people comment on how that could be done best.
>
>> the pglist_data part where it might not make sense at all?).
>
> Maybe:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> bool is_dying;
> #endif
>
Still doesn't quite look like it would belong here :(
Also, is "dying" really the right terminology? It's more like "going
offline"?
But then, the queue is not going offline, the memcg is ...
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists