Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Uncharge poisoned pages

From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Uncharge poisoned pages
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:46:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170426044608.GA32451@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1493178300.4828.5.camel@gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:45:00PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > >  static int delete_from_lru_cache(struct page *p)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	if (memcg_kmem_enabled())
> > > > +		memcg_kmem_uncharge(p, 0);
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > The changelog is not quite clear, so we are uncharging a page using
> > > memcg_kmem_uncharge for a page in swap cache/page cache?
> > 
> > Hi Balbir,
> > 
> > Yes, in the normal page lifecycle, uncharge is done in page free time.
> > But in memory error handling case, in-use pages (i.e. swap cache and page
> > cache) are removed from normal path and they don't pass page freeing code.
> > So I think that this change is to keep the consistent charging for such a case.
> 
> I agree we should uncharge, but looking at the API name, it seems to
> be for kmem pages, why are we not using mem_cgroup_uncharge()? Am I missing
> something?

Thank you for pointing out.
Actually I had the same question and this surely looks strange.
But simply calling mem_cgroup_uncharge() here doesn't work because it
assumes that page_refcount(p) == 0, which is not true in hwpoison context.
We need some other clearer way or at least some justifying comment about
why this is ok.

- Naoya
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>