From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4506C432C3 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A202068D for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:55:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A0A202068D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 334796B0007; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2E5646B0008; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:55:52 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1D3D26B000A; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:55:52 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0175.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.175]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D9F6B0007 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B6F82180AD815 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:55:51 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76169244102.26.slope72_15ed79a82d652 X-HE-Tag: slope72_15ed79a82d652 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6167 Received: from out30-42.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-42.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.42]) by imf43.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:55:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R661e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04394;MF=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=38;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0TiTpj16_1574078144; Received: from IT-FVFX43SYHV2H.local(mailfrom:alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0TiTpj16_1574078144) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:55:45 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, tj@kernel.org, hughd@google.com, khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com, Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Chris Down , Thomas Gleixner , Vlastimil Babka , Qian Cai , Andrey Ryabinin , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= , Andrea Arcangeli , David Rientjes , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , swkhack , "Potyra, Stefan" , Mike Rapoport , Stephen Rothwell , Colin Ian King , Jason Gunthorpe , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Peng Fan , Nikolay Borisov , Ira Weiny , Kirill Tkhai , Yafang Shao References: <1573874106-23802-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <1573874106-23802-4-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20191116043806.GD20752@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <0bfa9a03-b095-df83-9cfd-146da9aab89a@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:55:43 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191116043806.GD20752@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: =D4=DA 2019/11/16 =CF=C2=CE=E712:38, Matthew Wilcox =D0=B4=B5=C0: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:15:02AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> This is the main patch to replace per node lru_lock with per memcg >> lruvec lock. It also fold the irqsave flags into lruvec. >=20 > I have to say, I don't love the part where we fold the irqsave flags > into the lruvec. I know it saves us an argument, but it opens up the > possibility of mismatched expectations. eg we currently have: >=20 > static void __split_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list= , > struct lruvec *lruvec, pgoff_t end) > { > ... > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lruvec->lru_lock, lruvec->irqflags); >=20 > so if we introduce a new caller, we have to be certain that this caller > is also using lock_page_lruvec_irqsave() and not lock_page_lruvec_irq()= . > I can't think of a way to make the compiler enforce that, and if we don= 't, > then we can get some odd crashes with interrupts being unexpectedly > enabled or disabled, depending on how ->irqflags was used last. >=20 > So it makes the code more subtle. And that's not a good thing. Hi Matthew, Thanks for comments! Here, the irqflags is bound, and belong to lruvec, merging them into toge= ther helps us to take them as whole, and thus reduce a unnecessary code c= lues. The only thing maybe bad that it may take move place in pg_data_t.lruvec,= but there are PADDINGs to remove this concern. As your concern for a 'new' caller, since __split_huge_page is a static h= elper here, no distub for anyothers. Do you agree on that? >=20 >> +static inline struct lruvec *lock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page, >> + struct pglist_data *pgdat) >> +{ >> + struct lruvec *lruvec =3D mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat); >> + >> + spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock); >> + >> + return lruvec; >> +} >=20 > ... >=20 >> +static struct lruvec *lock_page_lru(struct page *page, int *isolated) >> { >> pg_data_t *pgdat =3D page_pgdat(page); >> + struct lruvec *lruvec =3D lock_page_lruvec_irq(page, pgdat); >> =20 >> - spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock); >> if (PageLRU(page)) { >> - struct lruvec *lruvec; >> =20 >> - lruvec =3D mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat); >> ClearPageLRU(page); >> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_lru(page)); >> *isolated =3D 1; >> } else >> *isolated =3D 0; >> + >> + return lruvec; >> } >=20 > But what if the page is !PageLRU? What lruvec did we just lock? like original pgdat->lru_lock, we need the lock from PageLRU racing. And = it the lruvec which the page should be. > According to the comments on mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(), >=20 > * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation > * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must > * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it. >=20 > and now it's being called in order to find out which LRU lock to take. > So this comment needs to be updated, if it's wrong, or this patch has > a race. Yes, the function reminder is a bit misunderstanding with new patch, How = about the following changes: - * This function is only safe when following the LRU page isolation - * and putback protocol: the LRU lock must be held, and the page must - * either be PageLRU() or the caller must have isolated/allocated it. + * The caller needs to grantee the page's mem_cgroup is undisturbed duri= ng + * using. That could be done by lock_page_memcg or lock_page_lruvec. Thanks Alex