I am still reading through the series. It is a lot of code and quite
hard to wrap ones head around so these are mostly random things I have
run into. More will likely follow up.
On Tue 04-01-22 13:22:25, Yu Zhao wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index aba18cd101db..028afdb81c10 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -1393,18 +1393,24 @@ mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>
> static inline void lock_page_memcg(struct page *page)
> {
> + /* to match folio_memcg_rcu() */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> }
>
> static inline void unlock_page_memcg(struct page *page)
> {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> static inline void folio_memcg_lock(struct folio *folio)
> {
> + /* to match folio_memcg_rcu() */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> }
>
> static inline void folio_memcg_unlock(struct folio *folio)
> {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
This should go into a separate patch and merge it independently. I
haven't really realized that !MEMCG configuration has a different
locking scopes.
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> index 2db9a1432511..9c7a4fae0661 100644
> --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> @@ -57,6 +57,22 @@ struct oom_control {
> extern struct mutex oom_lock;
> extern struct mutex oom_adj_mutex;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> +extern struct task_struct *oom_reaper_list;
> +extern struct wait_queue_head oom_reaper_wait;
> +
> +static inline bool oom_reaping_in_progress(void)
> +{
> + /* a racy check can be used to reduce the chance of overkilling */
> + return READ_ONCE(oom_reaper_list) || !waitqueue_active(&oom_reaper_wait);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool oom_reaping_in_progress(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +#endif
I do not like this. These are internal oom reaper's and no code should
really make any decisions based on that. oom_reaping_in_progress is not
telling much anyway. This is a global queue for oom reaper that can
contain oom victims from different oom scopes (e.g. global OOM, memcg
OOM or memory policy OOM).
Your lru_gen_age_node uses this to decide whether to trigger
out_of_memory and that is clearly wrong for the above reasons.
out_of_memory is designed to skip over any action if there is an oom
victim pending from the oom domain (have a look at oom_evaluate_task).
[...]
> +static bool age_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
> + unsigned long min_ttl)
> +{
> + bool need_aging;
> + long nr_to_scan;
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
> + int swappiness = get_swappiness(memcg);
> + DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec);
> + DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec);
> +
> + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg))
> + return false;
mem_cgroup_below_min requires effective values to be calculated for the
reclaimed hierarchy. Have a look at mem_cgroup_calculate_protection
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
