I wanted to give you small feedback, that this patch successfully fixes the
problem with reparent_charges on our cluster. Thank you very much for finding
and fixing this one!
On Wednesday 12 February 2014 15:03:31 Hugh Dickins wrote:
> From: Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sometimes the cleanup after memcg hierarchy testing gets stuck in
> mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(), unable to bring non-kmem usage down to 0.
>
> There may turn out to be several causes, but a major cause is this: the
> workitem to offline parent can get run before workitem to offline child;
> parent's mem_cgroup_reparent_charges() circles around waiting for the
> child's pages to be reparented to its lrus, but it's holding cgroup_mutex
> which prevents the child from reaching its mem_cgroup_reparent_charges().
>
> Further testing showed that an ordered workqueue for cgroup_destroy_wq
> is not always good enough: percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm's call_rcu_sched
> stage on the way can mess up the order before reaching the workqueue.
>
> Instead, when offlining a memcg, call mem_cgroup_reparent_charges() on
> all its children (and grandchildren, in the correct order) to have their
> charges reparented first.
>
> Fixes: e5fca243abae ("cgroup: use a dedicated workqueue for cgroup
> destruction") Signed-off-by: Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v3.10+ (but will need extra care)
> ---
> Or, you may prefer my alternative cgroup.c approach in 2/2:
> there's no need for both. Please note that neither of these patches
> attempts to handle the unlikely case of racy charges made to child
> after its offline, but parent's offline coming before child's free:
> mem_cgroup_css_free()'s backstop call to mem_cgroup_reparent_charges()
> cannot help in that case, with or without these patches. Fixing that
> would have to be a separate effort - Michal's?
>
> mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- 3.14-rc2/mm/memcontrol.c 2014-02-02 18:49:07.897302115 -0800
> +++ linux/mm/memcontrol.c 2014-02-11 17:48:07.604582963 -0800
> @@ -6595,6 +6595,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_offline(struc
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(css);
> struct mem_cgroup_event *event, *tmp;
> + struct cgroup_subsys_state *iter;
>
> /*
> * Unregister events and notify userspace.
> @@ -6611,7 +6612,14 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_offline(struc
> kmem_cgroup_css_offline(memcg);
>
> mem_cgroup_invalidate_reclaim_iterators(memcg);
> - mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(memcg);
> +
> + /*
> + * This requires that offlining is serialized. Right now that is
> + * guaranteed because css_killed_work_fn() holds the cgroup_mutex.
> + */
> + css_for_each_descendant_post(iter, css)
> + mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(mem_cgroup_from_css(iter));
> +
> mem_cgroup_destroy_all_caches(memcg);
> vmpressure_cleanup(&memcg->vmpressure);
> }
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>