On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:44:47 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * mem_cgroup_update_page_stat_locked() - update memcg file cache's accounting
> > + * @page: the page involved in a file cache operation.
> > + * @idx: the particular file cache statistic.
> > + * @charge: true to increment, false to decrement the statistic specified
> > + * by @idx.
> > + *
> > + * Update memory cgroup file cache's accounting from a locked context.
> > + *
> > + * NOTE: must be called with mapping->tree_lock held.
> > + */
> > +void mem_cgroup_update_page_stat_locked(struct page *page,
> > + enum mem_cgroup_write_page_stat_item idx, bool charge)
> > +{
> > + struct address_space *mapping = page_mapping(page);
> > + struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > +
> > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > + return;
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(mapping && !spin_is_locked(&mapping->tree_lock));
> > +
> I think this is a wrong place to insert assertion.
> The problem about page cgroup lock is that it can be interrupted in current implementation.
> So,
>
> a) it must not be aquired under another lock which can be aquired in interrupt context,
> such as mapping->tree_lock, to avoid:
>
> context1 context2
> lock_page_cgroup(pcA)
> spin_lock_irq(&tree_lock)
> lock_page_cgroup(pcA) <interrupted>
> =>fail spin_lock_irqsave(&tree_lock)
> =>fail
>
> b) it must not be aquired in interrupt context to avoid:
>
> lock_page_cgroup(pcA)
> <interrupted>
> lock_page_cgroup(pcA)
> =>fail
>
> I think something like this would be better:
>
> @@ -83,8 +83,14 @@ static inline enum zone_type page_cgroup_zid(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> return page_zonenum(pc->page);
> }
>
> +#include <linux/irqflags.h>
> +#include <linux/hardirq.h>
> static inline void lock_page_cgroup(struct page_cgroup *pc)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled());
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_interrupt());
> +#endif
> bit_spin_lock(PCG_LOCK, &pc->flags);
> }
>
> > + pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > + if (unlikely(!pc) || !PageCgroupUsed(pc))
> > + return;
> > + mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(pc, idx, charge);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mem_cgroup_update_page_stat_locked);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * mem_cgroup_update_page_stat_unlocked() - update memcg file cache's accounting
> > + * @page: the page involved in a file cache operation.
> > + * @idx: the particular file cache statistic.
> > + * @charge: true to increment, false to decrement the statistic specified
> > + * by @idx.
> > + *
> > + * Update memory cgroup file cache's accounting from an unlocked context.
> > + */
> > +void mem_cgroup_update_page_stat_unlocked(struct page *page,
> > + enum mem_cgroup_write_page_stat_item idx, bool charge)
> > +{
> > + struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > +
> > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > + return;
> > + pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> > + if (unlikely(!pc) || !PageCgroupUsed(pc))
> > + return;
> > + lock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > + mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(pc, idx, charge);
> > unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mem_cgroup_update_page_stat_unlocked);
> >
> IIUC, test_clear_page_writeback(at least) can be called under interrupt context.
> This means lock_page_cgroup() is called under interrupt context, that is,
> the case b) above can happen.
> hmm... I don't have any good idea for now except disabling irq around page cgroup lock
> to avoid all of these mess things.
>
Hmm...simply IRQ-off for all updates ?
But IIRC, clear_writeback is done under treelock.... No ?
Thanks,
-Kame
>
> Thanks,
> Daisuke Nishimura.
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>