On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:55:43PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 在 2019/11/16 下午12:38, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:15:02AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> This is the main patch to replace per node lru_lock with per memcg
> >> lruvec lock. It also fold the irqsave flags into lruvec.
> >
> > I have to say, I don't love the part where we fold the irqsave flags
> > into the lruvec. I know it saves us an argument, but it opens up the
> > possibility of mismatched expectations. eg we currently have:
> >
> > static void __split_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
> > struct lruvec *lruvec, pgoff_t end)
> > {
> > ...
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lruvec->lru_lock, lruvec->irqflags);
> >
> > so if we introduce a new caller, we have to be certain that this caller
> > is also using lock_page_lruvec_irqsave() and not lock_page_lruvec_irq().
> > I can't think of a way to make the compiler enforce that, and if we don't,
> > then we can get some odd crashes with interrupts being unexpectedly
> > enabled or disabled, depending on how ->irqflags was used last.
> >
> > So it makes the code more subtle. And that's not a good thing.
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Thanks for comments!
>
> Here, the irqflags is bound, and belong to lruvec, merging them into together helps us to take them as whole, and thus reduce a unnecessary code clues.
It's not bound to the lruvec, though. Call chain A uses it and call chain
B doesn't. If it was always used by every call chain, I'd see your point,
but we have call chains which don't use it, and so it adds complexity.
> As your concern for a 'new' caller, since __split_huge_page is a static helper here, no distub for anyothers.
Even though it's static, there may be other callers within the same file.
Or somebody may decide to make it non-static in the future. I think it's
actually clearer to keep the irqflags as a separate parameter.
> >> +static inline struct lruvec *lock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page,
> >> + struct pglist_data *pgdat)
> >> +{
> >> + struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
> >> +
> >> + spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> >> +
> >> + return lruvec;
> >> +}
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +static struct lruvec *lock_page_lru(struct page *page, int *isolated)
> >> {
> >> pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
> >> + struct lruvec *lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page, pgdat);
> >>
> >> - spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
> >> if (PageLRU(page)) {
> >> - struct lruvec *lruvec;
> >>
> >> - lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
> >> ClearPageLRU(page);
> >> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page));
> >> *isolated = 1;
> >> } else
> >> *isolated = 0;
> >> +
> >> + return lruvec;
> >> }
> >
> > But what if the page is !PageLRU? What lruvec did we just lock?
>
> like original pgdat->lru_lock, we need the lock from PageLRU racing. And it the lruvec which the page should be.
>
>
> > According to the comments on mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(),
> >
> > * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation
> > * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must
> > * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it.
> >
> > and now it's being called in order to find out which LRU lock to take.
> > So this comment needs to be updated, if it's wrong, or this patch has
> > a race.
>
>
> Yes, the function reminder is a bit misunderstanding with new patch, How about the following changes:
>
> - * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation
> - * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must
> - * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it.
> + * The caller needs to grantee the page's mem_cgroup is undisturbed during
> + * using. That could be done by lock_page_memcg or lock_page_lruvec.
I don't understand how lock_page_lruvec makes this guarantee. I'll look
at the code again and see if I can understand that.
