On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:18 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 01:25:10PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote: > > The diagram below shows how to make the folio lruvec lock safe when LRU > > pages are reparented. > > > > folio_lruvec_lock(folio) > > retry: > > lruvec = folio_lruvec(folio); > > > > // The folio is reparented at this time. > > spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock); > > > > if (unlikely(lruvec_memcg(lruvec) != folio_memcg(folio))) > > // Acquired the wrong lruvec lock and need to retry. > > // Because this folio is on the parent memcg lruvec list. > > goto retry; > > > > // If we reach here, it means that folio_memcg(folio) is stable. > > > > memcg_reparent_objcgs(memcg) > > // lruvec belongs to memcg and lruvec_parent belongs to parent memcg. > > spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock); > > spin_lock(&lruvec_parent->lru_lock); > > > > // Move all the pages from the lruvec list to the parent lruvec list. > > > > spin_unlock(&lruvec_parent->lru_lock); > > spin_unlock(&lruvec->lru_lock); > > > > After we acquire the lruvec lock, we need to check whether the folio is > > reparented. If so, we need to reacquire the new lruvec lock. On the > > routine of the LRU pages reparenting, we will also acquire the lruvec > > lock (will be implemented in the later patch). So folio_memcg() cannot > > be changed when we hold the lruvec lock. > > > > Since lruvec_memcg(lruvec) is always equal to folio_memcg(folio) after > > we hold the lruvec lock, lruvec_memcg_debug() check is pointless. So > > remove it. > > > > This is a preparation for reparenting the LRU pages. > > > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > Maybe it's mostly s/page/folio, but the patch looks quite differently > in comparison to the version I did ack. In general, please, drop acks > when there are significant changes between versions. Got it. I'll drop all acks in the next version. Thanks. > > Thanks!
