On Tue 12-11-19 11:16:58, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 12-11-19 06:59:42, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Qian, thanks for the report and the fix.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 11-11-19 13:14:27, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > > Chris Down writes:
> > > > > > Ah, I just saw this in my local checkout and thought it was from my
> > > > > > changes, until I saw it's also on clean mmots checkout. Thanks for the
> > > > > > fixup!
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, does this mean we should change callers that may pass through
> > > > > zone_idx=MAX_NR_ZONES to become MAX_NR_ZONES-1 in a separate commit, then
> > > > > remove this interim fixup? I'm worried otherwise we might paper over real
> > > > > issues in future.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, removing this special casing is reasonable. I am not sure
> > > > MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 is a better choice though. It is error prone and
> > > > zone_idx is the highest zone we should consider and MAX_NR_ZONES - 1
> > > > be ZONE_DEVICE if it is configured. But ZONE_DEVICE is really standing
> > > > outside of MM reclaim code AFAIK. It would be probably better to have
> > > > MAX_LRU_ZONE (equal to MOVABLE) and use it instead.
> > >
> > > We already use MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 everywhere else in vmscan.c to mean
> > > "no zone restrictions" - get_scan_count() is the odd one out:
> > >
> > > - mem_cgroup_shrink_node()
> > > - try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> > > - balance_pgdat()
> > > - kswapd()
> > > - shrink_all_memory()
> > >
> > > It's a little odd that it points to ZONE_DEVICE, but it's MUCH less
> > > subtle than handling both inclusive and exclusive range delimiters.
> > >
> > > So I think the better fix would be this:
> >
> > lruvec_lru_size is explicitly documented to use MAX_NR_ZONES for all
> > LRUs and git grep says there are more instances outside of
> > get_scan_count. So all of them have to be fixed.
>
> Which ones?
>
> [hannes@computer linux]$ git grep lruvec_lru_size
> include/linux/mmzone.h:extern unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone_idx);
> mm/vmscan.c: * lruvec_lru_size - Returns the number of pages on the given LRU list.
> mm/vmscan.c:unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone_idx)
> mm/vmscan.c: anon = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> mm/vmscan.c: lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
> mm/vmscan.c: file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> mm/vmscan.c: lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
> mm/vmscan.c: lruvec_size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
> [hannes@computer linux]$
I have checked the Linus tree but now double checked with the current
next
$ git describe next/master
next-20191112
$ git grep "lruvec_lru_size.*MAX_NR_ZONES" next/master
next/master:mm/vmscan.c: lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, inactive_lru, MAX_NR_ZONES), inactive,
next/master:mm/vmscan.c: lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, active_lru, MAX_NR_ZONES), active,
next/master:mm/vmscan.c: anon = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
next/master:mm/vmscan.c: lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES);
next/master:mm/vmscan.c: file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
next/master:mm/vmscan.c: lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);
next/master:mm/workingset.c: active_file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);
are there any changes which didn't make it to linux next yet?
> The only other user already passes sc->reclaim_idx, which always
> points to a valid zone, and is initialized to MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 in many
> places.
>
> > I still think that MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 is a very error prone and subtle
> > construct IMHO and an alias would be better readable.
>
> I wouldn't mind a follow-up patch that changes this pattern
> comprehensively. As it stands, get_scan_count() is the odd one out.
OK, a follow up patch to unify everything makes sense to me.
> The documentation bit is a good point, though. We should fix
> that. Updated patch:
>
> ---
>
> >From b1b6ce306010554aba6ebd7aac0abffc1576d71a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:46:25 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: simplify lruvec_lru_size() fix
>
> get_scan_count() passes MAX_NR_ZONES for the reclaim index, which is
> beyond the range of valid zone indexes, but used to be handled before
> the patch. Every other callsite in vmscan.c passes MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 to
> express "all zones, please", so do the same here.
>
> Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index df859b1d583c..5eb96a63ad1e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ unsigned long zone_reclaimable_pages(struct zone *zone)
> * lruvec_lru_size - Returns the number of pages on the given LRU list.
> * @lruvec: lru vector
> * @lru: lru to use
> - * @zone_idx: zones to consider (use MAX_NR_ZONES for the whole LRU list)
> + * @zone_idx: index of the highest zone to include (use MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 for all)
> */
> unsigned long lruvec_lru_size(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum lru_list lru, int zone_idx)
> {
> @@ -2322,10 +2322,10 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
> * anon in [0], file in [1]
> */
>
> - anon = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
> - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES);
> - file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) +
> - lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);
> + anon = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
> + file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) +
> + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1);
>
> spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> if (unlikely(reclaim_stat->recent_scanned[0] > anon / 4)) {
> --
> 2.24.0
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
