On Thu 31-03-22 18:11:26, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> Yup. I did this:
>
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: mm/list_lru.c: revert "mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()"
>
> 405cc51fc1049c73 ("mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()")
> has subtle races which are proving ugly to fix. Revert the original
> optimization. If quantitative testing indicates that we have a
> significant problem here then other implementations can be looked at.
>
> Fixes: 405cc51fc1049c73 ("mm/list_lru: optimize memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()")
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
> ---
>
> mm/list_lru.c | 6 ------
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/mm/list_lru.c~revert-1
> +++ a/mm/list_lru.c
> @@ -395,12 +395,6 @@ static void memcg_reparent_list_lru_node
> struct list_lru_one *src, *dst;
>
> /*
> - * If there is no lru entry in this nlru, we can skip it immediately.
> - */
> - if (!READ_ONCE(nlru->nr_items))
> - return;
> -
> - /*
> * Since list_lru_{add,del} may be called under an IRQ-safe lock,
> * we have to use IRQ-safe primitives here to avoid deadlock.
> */
> _
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
