2020년 2월 13일 (목) 오전 3:18, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:28:19PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Johannes.
> >
> > When I tested my patchset on v5.5, I found that my patchset doesn't
> > work as intended. I tracked down the issue and this patch would be the
> > reason of unintended work. I don't fully understand the patchset so I
> > could be wrong. Please let me ask some questions.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:53:33PM -0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > ...snip...
> > > -static void snapshot_refaults(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg, pg_data_t *pgdat)
> > > +static void snapshot_refaults(struct mem_cgroup *target_memcg, pg_data_t *pgdat)
> > > {
> > > - struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > > -
> > > - memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root_memcg, NULL, NULL);
> > > - do {
> > > - unsigned long refaults;
> > > - struct lruvec *lruvec;
> > > + struct lruvec *target_lruvec;
> > > + unsigned long refaults;
> > >
> > > - lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
> > > - refaults = lruvec_page_state_local(lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
> > > - lruvec->refaults = refaults;
> > > - } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root_memcg, memcg, NULL)));
> > > + target_lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(target_memcg, pgdat);
> > > + refaults = lruvec_page_state(target_lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
> > > + target_lruvec->refaults = refaults;
> >
> > Is it correct to just snapshot the refault for the target memcg? I
> > think that we need to snapshot the refault for all the child memcgs
> > since we have traversed all the child memcgs with the refault count
> > that is aggregration of all the child memcgs. If next reclaim happens
> > from the child memcg, workingset transition that is already considered
> > could be considered again.
>
> Good catch, you're right! We have to update all cgroups in the tree,
> like we used to. However, we need to use lruvec_page_state() instead
> of _local, because we do recursive comparisons in shrink_node()! So
> it's not a clean revert of that hunk.
>
> Does this patch here fix the problem you are seeing?
I found that my problem comes from my mistake.
Sorry for bothering you!
Anyway, following hunk looks correct to me.
Acked-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index c82e9831003f..e7431518db13 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2993,12 +2993,17 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, struct scan_control *sc)
>
> static void snapshot_refaults(struct mem_cgroup *target_memcg, pg_data_t *pgdat)
> {
> - struct lruvec *target_lruvec;
> - unsigned long refaults;
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>
> - target_lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(target_memcg, pgdat);
> - refaults = lruvec_page_state(target_lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
> - target_lruvec->refaults = refaults;
> + memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, NULL, NULL);
> + do {
> + unsigned long refaults;
> + struct lruvec *lruvec;
> +
> + lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
> + refaults = lruvec_page_state(lruvec, WORKINGSET_ACTIVATE);
> + lruvec->refaults = refaults;
> + } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, memcg, NULL)));
> }
>
> /*
>
> > > @@ -277,12 +305,12 @@ void workingset_refault(struct page *page, void *shadow)
> > > * would be better if the root_mem_cgroup existed in all
> > > * configurations instead.
> > > */
> > > - memcg = mem_cgroup_from_id(memcgid);
> > > - if (!mem_cgroup_disabled() && !memcg)
> > > + eviction_memcg = mem_cgroup_from_id(memcgid);
> > > + if (!mem_cgroup_disabled() && !eviction_memcg)
> > > goto out;
> > > - lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
> > > - refault = atomic_long_read(&lruvec->inactive_age);
> > > - active_file = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES);
> > > + eviction_lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(eviction_memcg, pgdat);
> > > + refault = atomic_long_read(&eviction_lruvec->inactive_age);
> > > + active_file = lruvec_page_state(eviction_lruvec, NR_ACTIVE_FILE);
> >
> > Do we need to use the aggregation LRU count of all the child memcgs?
> > AFAIU, refault here is the aggregation counter of all the related
> > memcgs. Without using the aggregation count for LRU, active_file could
> > be so small than the refault distance and refault cannot happen
> > correctly.
>
> lruvec_page_state() *is* aggregated for all child memcgs (as opposed
> to lruvec_page_state_local()), so that comparison looks correct to me.
Thanks for informing this.
I have checked lruvec_page_state() but not mod_lruvec_state() so cannot
find that counter is the aggregated value.
Thanks.
