On Thu 01-12-16 03:24:54, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> 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.
I will consider this as
Tested-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
OK? Thanks for the report and testing!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>