On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:28:55 +0200
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:28:53AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:53:49 +0200
> > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:21PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:33:16 +0200
> > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:19:01PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:54:04 +0200
> > > > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:30:42PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:40:22 +0200
> > > > > > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is a potential race between a thread charging a page and another
> > > > > > > > > thread putting it back to the LRU list:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > charge: putback:
> > > > > > > > > SetPageCgroupUsed SetPageLRU
> > > > > > > > > PageLRU && add to memcg LRU PageCgroupUsed && add to memcg LRU
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I assumed that all pages are charged before added to LRU.
> > > > > > > > (i.e. event happens in charge->lru_lock->putback order.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But hmm, this assumption may be bad for maintainance.
> > > > > > > > Do you find a code which adds pages to LRU before charge ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm, if there are codes which recharge the page to other memcg,
> > > > > > > > it will cause bug and my assumption may be harmful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Swap slots are read optimistically into swapcache and put to the LRU,
> > > > > > > then charged upon fault.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, then swap charge removes page from LRU before charge.
> > > > > > IIUC, it needed to do so because page->mem_cgroup may be replaced.
> > > > >
> > > > > But only from the memcg LRU. It's still on the global per-zone LRU,
> > > > > so reclaim could isolate/putback it during the charge. And then
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > charge: putback:
> > > > > > > > > SetPageCgroupUsed SetPageLRU
> > > > > > > > > PageLRU && add to memcg LRU PageCgroupUsed && add to memcg LRU
> > > > >
> > > > > applies.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, in this case, I thought memcg puts back the page to its LRU by itself
> > > > under lru_loc after charge and the race was hidden.
> > >
> > > But it locklessly checks PageLRU and bails if it's cleared and that is
> >
> > I think PageLRU check is done under zone->lru_lock.
>
> Yes, but only if a preliminary, lockless check observed PageLRU being
> set:
>
> static void mem_cgroup_lru_add_after_commit(struct page *page)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
> struct page_cgroup *pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> /*
> * putback: charge:
> * SetPageLRU SetPageCgroupUsed
> * smp_mb smp_mb
> * PageCgroupUsed && add to memcg LRU PageLRU && add to memcg LRU
> *
> * Ensure that one of the two sides adds the page to the memcg
> * LRU during a race.
> */
> smp_mb();
> /* taking care of that the page is added to LRU while we commit it */
> if (likely(!PageLRU(page)))
> return;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> /* link when the page is linked to LRU but page_cgroup isn't */
> if (PageLRU(page) && !PageCgroupAcctLRU(pc))
> mem_cgroup_add_lru_list(page, page_lru(page));
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> }
>
> Without the barriers, the preliminary check may see !PageLRU while a
> racing putback observed !PageCgroupUsed and nobody will add the page
> to the memcg-LRU.
>
Ok, thank you for clarification. I understand the point.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>