On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:29:34 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:16:09 -0800 (PST)
> Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:41:44 -0800 (PST)
> > > Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I notice that, unlike Linus's git, this linux-next still has
> > > > mm-isolate-pages-for-immediate-reclaim-on-their-own-lru.patch in.
> > > >
> > > > I think that was well capable of oopsing in mem_cgroup_lru_del_list(),
> > > > since it didn't always know which lru a page belongs to.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to be optimistic and assume that was the cause.
> > > >
> > > Hmm, because the log hits !memcg at lru "del", the page should be added
> > > to LRU somewhere and the lru must be determined by pc->mem_cgroup.
> > >
> > > Once set, pc->mem_cgroup is not cleared, just overwritten. AFAIK, there is
> > > only one chance to set pc->mem_cgroup as NULL... initalization.
> > > I wonder why it hits lru_del() rather than lru_add()...
> > > ................
> > >
> > > Ahhhh, ok, it seems you are right. the patch has following kinds of codes
> > > ==
> > > +static void pagevec_putback_immediate_fn(struct page *page, void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > + struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
> > > +
> > > + if (PageLRU(page)) {
> > > + enum lru_list lru = page_lru(page);
> > > + list_move(&page->lru, &zone->lru[lru].list);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > ==
> > > ..this will bypass mem_cgroup_lru_add(), and we can see bug in lru_del()
> > > rather than lru_add()..
> >
> > I've not thought it through in detail (and your questioning reminds me
> > that the worst I saw from that patch was updating of the wrong counts,
> > leading to underflow, then livelock from the mismatch between empty list
> > and enormous count: I never saw an oops from it, and may be mistaken).
> >
> > >
> > > Another question is who pushes pages to LRU before setting pc->mem_cgroup..
> > > Anyway, I think we need to fix memcg to be LRU_IMMEDIATE aware.
> >
> > I don't think so: Mel agreed that the patch could not go forward as is,
> > without an additional pageflag, and asked Andrew to drop it from mmotm
> > in mail on 29th December (I didn't notice an mm-commits message to say
> > akpm did drop it, and marc is blacked out in protest for today, so I
> > cannot check: but certainly akpm left it out of his push to Linus).
> >
> > Oh, and Mel noticed another bug in it on the 30th, that the PageLRU
> > check in the function you quote above is wrong: see PATCH 11/11 thread.
>
> Sure.
>
> Hm, what I need to find is a path which adds page to LRU bypassing memcg's check...
>
Sorry, I misunderstand the problem at all.
Now, I think reverting the patch will help this case.
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>