On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:14:00 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:42:07 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > When I was testing page migration, I found underflow problem of "mapped_file" field
> > in memory.stat. This is a fix for the problem.
> >
> > This patch is based on mmotm-2010-04-05-16-09, and IIUC it conflicts with Mel's
> > compaction patches, so I send it as RFC for now. After next mmotm, which will
> > include those patches, I'll update and resend this patch.
> >
> > ===
> > From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > page_add_file_rmap(), which can be called from remove_migration_ptes(), is
> > assumed to increment memcg's stat of mapped file. But on success of page
> > migration, the newpage(mapped file) has not been charged yet, so the stat will
> > not be incremented. This behavior leads to underflow of memcg's stat because
> > when the newpage is unmapped afterwards, page_remove_rmap() decrements the stat.
> > This problem doesn't happen on failure path of page migration, because the old
> > page(mapped file) hasn't been uncharge at the point of remove_migration_ptes().
> > This patch fixes this problem by calling commit_charge(mem_cgroup_end_migration)
> > before remove_migration_ptes().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Nice catch. but...I want to make all kind of complicated things under
> prepare/end migration. (And I want to avoid changes in migrate.c...)
>
hmm, I want to call mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped() only where we update
NR_FILE_MAPPED, but, okey, I see your concern.
> Considering some racy condistions, I wonder memcg_update_file_mapped() itself
> still need fixes..
>
> So, how about this ? We already added FILE_MAPPED flags, then, make use of it.
> ==
>
>
> At migrating mapped file, events happens in following sequence.
>
> 1. allocate a new page.
> 2. get memcg of an old page.
> 3. charge ageinst new page, before migration. But at this point
> no changes to page_cgroup, no commit-charge.
> 4. page migration replaces radix-tree, old-page and new-page.
> 5. page migration remaps the new page if the old page was mapped.
> 6. memcg commits the charge for newpage.
>
> Because "commit" happens after page-remap, we lose file_mapped
> accounting information at migration.
>
> This patch fixes it by accounting file_mapped information at
> commiting charge.
>
> Reported-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: mmotm-temp/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-temp.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ mmotm-temp/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1435,11 +1435,13 @@ void mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(struc
>
> /*
> * Preemption is already disabled. We can use __this_cpu_xxx
> + * We have no lock per page at inc/dec mapcount of pages. We have to do
> + * check by ourselves under lock_page_cgroup().
> */
> - if (val > 0) {
> + if (val > 0 && !PageCgroupFileMapped(pc)) {
> __this_cpu_inc(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
> SetPageCgroupFileMapped(pc);
> - } else {
> + } else if (PageCgroupFileMapped(pc)) {
> __this_cpu_dec(mem->stat->count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_MAPPED]);
> ClearPageCgroupFileMapped(pc);
> }
Adding likely() is better ? IIUC, these conditions are usually met except for
the case of page migration. And, can you add a comment about it ?
> @@ -2563,6 +2565,15 @@ void mem_cgroup_end_migration(struct mem
> */
> if (ctype == MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_MAPPED)
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_page(target);
> + else {
> + /*
> + * When a migrated file cache is remapped, it's not charged.
> + * Verify it. Because we're under lock_page(), there are
> + * no race with uncharge.
> + */
> + if (page_mapped(target))
> + mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(mem, target, 1);
> + }
We cannot rely on page lock, because when we succeeded in page migration,
"target" = "newpage" has already unlocked in move_to_new_page(). So the "target"
can be removed from the radix-tree theoretically(it's not related to this
underflow problem, though).
Shouldn't we call lock_page(target) and check "if (!target->mapping)" to handle
this case(maybe in another patch) ?
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
> /*
> * At migration, we may charge account against cgroup which has no tasks
> * So, rmdir()->pre_destroy() can be called while we do this charge.
>
--
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>