Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: Separate folio_split_memcg_refs() from split_page_memcg()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 14.03.25 14:36, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
Folios always use memcg_data to refer to the mem_cgroup while pages
allocated with GFP_ACCOUNT have a pointer to the obj_cgroup.  Since the
caller already knows what it has, split the function into two and then
we don't need to check.

Move the assignment of split folio memcg_data to the point where we set
up the other parts of the new folio.  That leaves folio_split_memcg_refs()
just handling the memcg accounting.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  include/linux/memcontrol.h |  7 +++++++
  mm/huge_memory.c           | 16 ++++------------
  mm/memcontrol.c            | 17 +++++++++++++----
  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 57664e2a8fb7..d090089c5497 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -1039,6 +1039,8 @@ static inline void memcg_memory_event_mm(struct mm_struct *mm,
  }
void split_page_memcg(struct page *head, int old_order, int new_order);
+void folio_split_memcg_refs(struct folio *folio, unsigned old_order,
+		unsigned new_order);
static inline u64 cgroup_id_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
  {
@@ -1463,6 +1465,11 @@ static inline void split_page_memcg(struct page *head, int old_order, int new_or
  {
  }
+static inline void folio_split_memcg_refs(struct folio *folio,
+		unsigned old_order, unsigned new_order)
+{
+}
+
  static inline u64 cgroup_id_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
  {
  	return 0;
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 14b1963898a7..3e5ecc8f3d13 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3394,6 +3394,9 @@ static void __split_folio_to_order(struct folio *folio, int old_order,
  			folio_set_young(new_folio);
  		if (folio_test_idle(folio))
  			folio_set_idle(new_folio);
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
+		new_folio->memcg_data = folio->memcg_data;
+#endif
folio_xchg_last_cpupid(new_folio, folio_last_cpupid(folio));
  	}
@@ -3525,18 +3528,7 @@ static int __split_unmapped_folio(struct folio *folio, int new_order,
  			}
  		}
- /*
-		 * Reset any memcg data overlay in the tail pages.
-		 * folio_nr_pages() is unreliable until prep_compound_page()
-		 * was called again.
-		 */
-#ifdef NR_PAGES_IN_LARGE_FOLIO
-		folio->_nr_pages = 0;
-#endif


I remember that we could trigger a warning without that, but I don't immediately find where that warning was. IIRC, if we'd split to order-0, page[1] would have indicated that it had a memcg set, and something bailed out.

Maybe Zi Yan recalls where that check fired.

In any case, if that warning no longer fires this is a very nice cleanup!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux