Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm/memcontrol: allow to uncharge page without using page->lru field

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	David Nellans <dnellans@nvidia.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm/memcontrol: allow to uncharge page without using page->lru field
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:48:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170710174857.GF7071@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170710165420.GC4964@redhat.com>

On Mon 10-07-17 12:54:21, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 06:36:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 10-07-17 12:25:42, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Bottom line is that we can always free and uncharge device memory
> > > page just like any regular page.
> > 
> > OK, this answers my earlier question. Then it should be feasible to
> > charge this memory. There are still some things to handle. E.g. how do
> > we consider this memory during oom victim selection (this is not
> > accounted as an anonymous memory in get_mm_counter, right?), maybe others.
> > But the primary point is that nobody pins the memory outside of the
> > mapping.
> 
> At this point it is accounted as a regular page would be (anonymous, file
> or share memory). I wanted mm_counters to reflect memcg but i can untie
> that.

I am not sure I understand. If the device memory is accounted to the
same mm counter as the original page then it is correct. I will try to
double check the implementation (hopefully soon).

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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>