On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Daisuke Nishimura
<nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:48:25 -0700, Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Daisuke Nishimura
>> <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:14:07 -0700, Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:55:12PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:10:39 +0530
>> >> >> > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-03-19 10:23:32]:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0530
>> >> >> >> > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-03-18 13:35:27]:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > > Then, no probelm. It's ok to add mem_cgroup_udpate_stat() indpendent from
>> >> >> >> > > > mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(). The look may be messy but it's not your
>> >> >> >> > > > fault. But please write "why add new function" to patch description.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > I'm sorry for wasting your time.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > Do we need to go down this route? We could check the stat and do the
>> >> >> >> > > correct thing. In case of FILE_MAPPED, always grab page_cgroup_lock
>> >> >> >> > > and for others potentially look at trylock. It is OK for different
>> >> >> >> > > stats to be protected via different locks.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I _don't_ want to see a mixture of spinlock and trylock in a function.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> A well documented well written function can help. The other thing is to
>> >> >> >> of-course solve this correctly by introducing different locking around
>> >> >> >> the statistics. Are you suggesting the later?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No. As I wrote.
>> >> >> > - don't modify codes around FILE_MAPPED in this series.
>> >> >> > - add a new functions for new statistics
>> >> >> > Then,
>> >> >> > - think about clean up later, after we confirm all things work as expected.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have ported Andrea Righi's memcg dirty page accounting patches to latest
>> >> >> mmtom-2010-04-05-16-09. In doing so I have to address this locking issue. Does
>> >> >> the following look good? I will (of course) submit the entire patch for review,
>> >> >> but I wanted make sure I was aiming in the right direction.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> void mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(struct page *page,
>> >> >> enum mem_cgroup_write_page_stat_item idx, bool charge)
>> >> >> {
>> >> >> static int seq;
>> >> >> struct page_cgroup *pc;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
>> >> >> return;
>> >> >> pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
>> >> >> if (!pc || mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup))
>> >> >> return;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /*
>> >> >> * This routine does not disable irq when updating stats. So it is
>> >> >> * possible that a stat update from within interrupt routine, could
>> >> >> * deadlock. Use trylock_page_cgroup() to avoid such deadlock. This
>> >> >> * makes the memcg counters fuzzy. More complicated, or lower
>> >> >> * performing locking solutions avoid this fuzziness, but are not
>> >> >> * currently needed.
>> >> >> */
>> >> >> if (irqs_disabled()) {
>> >> > ^^^^^^^^^
>> >> > Or may be in_interrupt()?
>> >>
>> >> Good catch. I will replace irqs_disabled() with in_interrupt().
>> >>
>> > I think you should check both. __remove_from_page_cache(), which will update
>> > DIRTY, is called with irq disabled(iow, under mapping->tree_lock) but not in
>> > interrupt context.
>>
>> The only reason to use trylock in this case is to prevent deadlock
>> when running in a context that may have preempted or interrupted a
>> routine that already holds the bit locked. In the
>> __remove_from_page_cache() irqs are disabled, but that does not imply
>> that a routine holding the spinlock has been preempted. When the bit
>> is locked, preemption is disabled. The only way to interrupt a holder
>> of the bit for an interrupt to occur (I/O, timer, etc). So I think
>> that in_interrupt() is sufficient. Am I missing something?
>>
> IIUC, it's would be enough to prevent deadlock where one CPU tries to acquire
> the same page cgroup lock. But there is still some possibility where 2 CPUs
> can cause dead lock each other(please see the commit e767e056).
> IOW, my point is "don't call lock_page_cgroup() under mapping->tree_lock".
I see your point. Thank you for explaining.
--
Greg
--
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