On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:30:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 13:16:53, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:00:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/workingset.c b/mm/workingset.c
> > > index 617475f529f4..0f07522c5c0e 100644
> > > --- a/mm/workingset.c
> > > +++ b/mm/workingset.c
> > > @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static unsigned long count_shadow_nodes(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> > > shadow_nodes = list_lru_shrink_count(&workingset_shadow_nodes, sc);
> > > local_irq_enable();
> > >
> > > - if (memcg_kmem_enabled()) {
> > > + if (memcg_kmem_enabled() && sc->memcg) {
> > > pages = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(sc->memcg, sc->nid,
> > > LRU_ALL_FILE);
> > > } else {
> >
> > If we do that, I'd remove the racy memcg_kmem_enabled() check
> > altogether and just check for whether we have a memcg or not.
>
> But that would make this a memcg aware shrinker even when kmem is not
> enabled...
>
> But now that I am looking into the code
> shrink_slab:
> if (memcg_kmem_enabled() &&
> !!memcg != !!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE))
> continue;
>
> this should be taken care of already. So sc->memcg should be indeed
> sufficient. So unless I am missing something I will respin my local
> patch and post it later after the reporter has some time to test the
> current one.
The above patch seems to help. At least the problem haven't occurred for
the last ~40 VM startups.
>
> > What do you think, Vladimir?
>
--
Pozdrawiam / Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki | RLU #390519
marmarek at staszic waw pl | xmpp:marmarek at staszic waw pl
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature