linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm: thp: reparent the split queue during memcg offline

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ba8bb85a-af2c-47b4-8d68-5b4c554dc819@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:43:23 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@...ux.dev>
To: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
 roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
 david@...hat.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, ziy@...dia.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, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm: thp: reparent the split queue during memcg
 offline



On 10/21/25 5:29 PM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 02:21:55PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/25 2:09 PM, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 02:35:33PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
>>>>
>>>> Similar to list_lru, the split queue is relatively independent and does
>>>> not need to be reparented along with objcg and LRU folios (holding
>>>> objcg lock and lru lock). So let's apply the similar mechanism as list_lru
>>>> to reparent the split queue separately when memcg is offine.
>>>>
>>>> This is also a preparation for reparenting LRU folios.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
>>>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Looks good to me,
>>> Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>> with a question:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> index e850bc10da3e2..9323039418201 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> @@ -1117,8 +1117,19 @@ static struct deferred_split *split_queue_lock(int nid, struct mem_cgroup *memcg
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct deferred_split *queue;
>>>> +retry:
>>>>    	queue = memcg_split_queue(nid, memcg);
>>>>    	spin_lock(&queue->split_queue_lock);
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * There is a period between setting memcg to dying and reparenting
>>>> +	 * deferred split queue, and during this period the THPs in the deferred
>>>> +	 * split queue will be hidden from the shrinker side.
>>>> +	 */
>>>
>>> You mean it will be hidden if the shrinker bit is not set for the node
>>> in the parent memcg, right?
>>
>> Look at the following situation:
>>
>> CPU 0                   CPU 1
>> -----                   -----
>>
>> set CSS_DYING
>>                          deferred_split_scan
>>                              /*
>>                               * See CSS_DYING, and return the parent
>>                               * memcg's ds_queue. But the pages on the
>>                               * child memcg's ds_queue has not yet been
>>                               * reparented to the parent memcg, that is,
>>                               * it is hidden.
>>                               */
>>                          --> ds_queue = split_queue_lock_irqsave()
>>
>> reparent_deferred_split_queue
> 
> Ah, I see what you meant. Thanks.
> 
> So we may end up shrinking the parent memcg twice if it's
> hidden, but I guess it's fine as it'll be rare?

Yeah.

> 
>> Thanks,
>> Qi
>