在 2020/7/9 下午11:48, Kirill A. Shutemov 写道:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:52:34PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 05:15:09PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>> Hi Kirill & Johannes & Matthew,
>>
>> Adding Kirill, who was in patch's Cc list but not mail's Cc list.
>>
>> I asked Alex to direct this one particularly to Kirill and Johannes
>> and Matthew because (and I regret that the commit message still does
>> not make this at all clear) this patch changes the lock ordering:
>> which for years has been lru_lock outside memcg move_lock outside
>> i_pages lock, but here inverted to lru_lock inside i_pages lock.
>>
>> I don't see a strong reason to have them one way round or the other,
>> and think Alex is right that they can safely be reversed here: but
>> he doesn't actually give any reason for doing so (if cleanup, then
>> I think the cleanup should have been taken further), and no reason
>> for doing so as part of this series.
>
> I've looked around and changing order of lru_lock wrt. i_pages lock seems
> safe. I don't have much experience with memcg move_lock.
Hi Kirill,
Thanks for response!
mem_cgroup_move_account(page) could not reach here since 2 blocks,
1, isolate_lru_page() before it will take page from lru, this compete for
page reclaim path, list non-null.
2, try_lock_page in it, will guard split_huge_page(), !list.
>
> Alex, if you are going ahead with the patch, please document the locking
> order. We have some locking orders listed at the beginning of filemap.c
> and rmap.c.
Thanks for reminder!
Hugh Dickins did this in above 2 files at the end of patchset, any comments?
diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
index f0ae9a6308cb..1b42aaae4d3e 100644
--- a/mm/filemap.c
+++ b/mm/filemap.c
@@ -101,8 +101,8 @@
* ->swap_lock (try_to_unmap_one)
* ->private_lock (try_to_unmap_one)
* ->i_pages lock (try_to_unmap_one)
- * ->pgdat->lru_lock (follow_page->mark_page_accessed)
- * ->pgdat->lru_lock (check_pte_range->isolate_lru_page)
+ * ->lruvec->lru_lock (follow_page->mark_page_accessed)
+ * ->lruvec->lru_lock (check_pte_range->isolate_lru_page)
* ->private_lock (page_remove_rmap->set_page_dirty)
* ->i_pages lock (page_remove_rmap->set_page_dirty)
* bdi.wb->list_lock (page_remove_rmap->set_page_dirty)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index d5e56be42f21..926d7d95dc1d 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -3057,7 +3057,7 @@ void __memcg_kmem_uncharge_page(struct page *page, int order)
#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
/*
- * Because tail pages are not marked as "used", set it. We're under
+ * Because tail pages are not marked as "used", set it. Don't need
* lruvec->lru_lock and migration entries setup in all page mappings.
*/
void mem_cgroup_split_huge_fixup(struct page *head)
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 5fe2dedce1fc..7fbc382e6f9e 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -28,12 +28,12 @@
* hugetlb_fault_mutex (hugetlbfs specific page fault mutex)
* anon_vma->rwsem
* mm->page_table_lock or pte_lock
- * pgdat->lru_lock (in mark_page_accessed, isolate_lru_page)
* swap_lock (in swap_duplicate, swap_info_get)
* mmlist_lock (in mmput, drain_mmlist and others)
* mapping->private_lock (in __set_page_dirty_buffers)
- * mem_cgroup_{begin,end}_page_stat (memcg->move_lock)
+ * lock_page_memcg move_lock (in __set_page_dirty_buffers)
* i_pages lock (widely used)
+ * lock_page_lruvec_irq lruvec->lru_lock
* inode->i_lock (in set_page_dirty's __mark_inode_dirty)
* bdi.wb->list_lock (in set_page_dirty's __mark_inode_dirty)
* sb_lock (within inode_lock in fs/fs-writeback.c)
>
> local_irq_disable() also deserves a comment.
>
yes, I will add a comment for this. Do you mind give reviewed-by for this patch?
Thanks
Alex
