Re: [Patch v3] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Kirill Tkhai wrote:

> >> I think that's a good point, especially considering that the current code 
> >> appears to unconditionally place any compound page on the deferred split 
> >> queue of the destination memcg.  The correct list that it should appear 
> >> on, I believe, depends on whether the pmd has been split for the process 
> >> being moved: note the MC_TARGET_PAGE caveat in 
> >> mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range() that does not move the charge for 
> >> compound pages with split pmds.  So when mem_cgroup_move_account() is 
> >> called with compound == true, we're moving the charge of the entire 
> >> compound page: why would it appear on that memcg's deferred split queue?
> > 
> > I believe Kirill asked how do we know that the page should be actually
> > added to the deferred list just from the list_empty check. In other
> > words what if the page hasn't been split at all?
> 
> Yes, I'm talking about this. Function mem_cgroup_move_account() adds every
> huge page to the deferred list, while we need to do that only for pages,
> which are queued for splitting...
> 

Yup, and that appears broken before Wei's patch.  Since we only migrate 
charges of entire compound pages (we have a mapping pmd, the underlying 
page cannot be split), it should not appear on the deferred split queue 
for any memcg, right?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux