On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 08:18:34AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 6:34 AM Wei Yang <richardw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> As all the other places, we grab the lock before manipulate the defer list.
>> Current implementation may face a race condition.
>>
>> Fixes: 87eaceb3faa5 ("mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>> I notice the difference during code reading and just confused about the
>> difference. No specific test is done since limited knowledge about cgroup.
>>
>> Maybe I miss something important?
>> ---
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index bc01423277c5..62b7ec34ef1a 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -5368,12 +5368,12 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_account(struct page *page,
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>> + spin_lock(&from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_lock);
>> if (compound && !list_empty(page_deferred_list(page))) {
>> - spin_lock(&from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_lock);
>> list_del_init(page_deferred_list(page));
>> from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_len--;
>> - spin_unlock(&from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_lock);
>> }
>> + spin_unlock(&from->deferred_split_queue.split_queue_lock);
>> #endif
>> /*
>> * It is safe to change page->mem_cgroup here because the page
>
>So I suspect the lock placement has to do with the compound boolean
>value passed to the function.
>
Hey, Alexander
Thanks for your comment.
>One thing you might want to do is pull the "if (compound)" check out
>and place it outside of the spinlock check. It would then simplify
>this signficantly so it is something like
>if (compound) {
> spin_lock();
> list = page_deferred_list(page);
> if (!list_empty(list)) {
> list_del_init(list);
> from->..split_queue_len--;
> }
> spin_unlock();
>}
>
>Same for the block below. I would pull the check for compound outside
>of the spinlock call since it is a value that shouldn't change and
>would eliminate an unnecessary lock in the non-compound case.
This is reasonable, if no objection from others, I would change this in v2.
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
