On Mon 21-08-17 09:02:18, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:56:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 09-08-17 14:38:25, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > The issue is that writeback doesn't hold a page reference and the page > > > might get freed after PG_writeback is cleared (and the mapping is > > > unlocked) in test_clear_page_writeback(). The stat functions looking > > > up the page's node or zone are safe, as those attributes are static > > > across allocation and free cycles. But page->mem_cgroup is not, and it > > > will get cleared if we race with truncation or migration. > > > > Is there anything that prevents us from holding a reference on a page > > under writeback? > > Hm, I'm hesitant to add redundant life-time management to the page > there just for memcg, which is not always configured in. > > Pinning the memcg instead is slightly more complex, but IMO has the > complexity in a preferrable place. If that is the single place that needs such a special handling and it is very likely to stay that way then the additional complexity is probably justified. I am just worried that this is really subtle and history tells us that such a code usually kicks us back later. > Would you agree? Well, I was not objecting to the patch. It seems correct I am just worried a robust fix would be preferable. And a clear object life time sounds like a more robust thing to do. -- 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>
